BISHKESHAN TEU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a long story behind the present litigation starting sometime in the year 1994. Initially, petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Constable under compassionate head after demise of his father. He filed an application, which was processed and accepted by the respondent authorities. Petitioner came to be appointed and a service book was opened, which is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondents. However, on police verification, it emerged that a FIR had been instituted against the petitioner making him one of the accused with four other persons under Sections 452, 353, 380, 323 etc. of the IPC. Since the petitioner was still a probationer, an order contained in Annexure-2 was issued, which is an order of removal simpliciter. This is dated 16.11.1994. Petitioner filed a writ application. An order dated 17.11.2008, contained in Annexure-4, was passed giving a direction upon the respondent authorities to dispose of the statutory appeal. The direction of the Court led to passing of an order dated 13.9.2011 by the Director General of Police, which is Annexure-5. By virtue of this order, the petitioner was reinstated and an order for holding fresh enquiry was passed since the earlier decision, contained in Annexure-2 was without show cause or enquiry. Petitioner joined work for a while then a charge-sheet contained in Annexure-6, dated 16.12.2011 was issued that there was suppression of facts by him that petitioner was accused in a criminal case at the relevant time. Enquiry was held. Petitioner was found guilty on that count, therefore, the order of removal contained in Ann'exure-10, which is dated 10.7.2012, was passed. This annexure is the cause of action and is under challenge in the present writ application.

(2.) Since much has transpired on the dispute, the Court is not persuaded by the stand taken by the State authorities that Annexure-2 was a valid order as petitioner was a probationer and nothing more than an order simpliciter of removal was required to be passed. If the matter stood at that there would have no problem but the highest in the department i.e. DG of Police himself has reinstated the petitioner in terms of Annexure-5 holding that he was not given adequate opportunity and no enquiry was held. Order of reinstatement, therefore, came to be passed with freedom to hold an enquiry.

(3.) That enquiry has culminated into termination now. This is for the Court to decide whether such an order ought to be upheld in the very first place.