ABDUL RAHMAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon a chargesheet dated 3rd March, 2000 followed by a reply thereto and subsequent enquiry, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from his services by the Impugned order. An appeal preferred against that order has yielded no result. The petitioner then filed a memorial that has also been rejected. The petitioner was a Sub Inspector of Police. He was attached with the Bhagalpur Police when he was relieved on 4th January, 2000 for joining the Muzaffarpur Police. The petitioner, the charge says, despite being relieved did not return his service revolver with the Bhagalpur Police administration. Admittedly the petitioner returned the same on 11th July, 2001 although he was chargesheeted on 3rd March, 2000 for unauthorisedly keeping the said service revolver. These facts were undisputed.

(2.) The petitioner sought to rely upon an order dated 29th January, 2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police staying the relieving order of the petitioner. No attempt was made by the petitioner to establish his conduct before the enquiry during the period 4th January, 2000 to 29th January, 2000. An Officer-having been relieved from a post is obliged to return the service revolver forthwith on receipt of the relieving order. He could not retain the same subsequent thereto unless specifically authorised to that effect by the superior authority. He did not bother to obtain any such permission. In such situation the only contention as was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment is disproportionate. It was submitted that having regard to the fact that the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 29th January, 2000 passed an order staying the relieving order with a direction that he be engaged in election duty and there being no further relieving order, the disciplinary authority should have taken note of the fact that the petitioner was in quandary and accordingly had caused delay in returning the service revolver. It was submitted that the petitioner, in fact, returned the service revolver, the same was not lost, nor there is any contention that the petitioner used the service revolver for any purpose other than the purpose of the police. It was submitted that the petitioner did discharge duties of election at Muzaffarpur but inasmuch as Muzaffarpur office did not receive any posting order of the petitioner, he could not discharge further duties at Muzaffarpur.

(3.) The question, in the instant case, was not whether the petitioner did discharge duties in accordance with the instructions issued. The question was - could an Officer, as that of the petitioner retain a service revolver given to him by the office for holding a post at that office despite being relieved from that office. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner did not return the service revolver after being so relieved even if he had joined the transferred post or served there would, not absolve him. The police administration requires strict. discipline. Subjecting a police officer to pass through such discipline, if it has been held that retaining of a service revolver in such circumstances is not pardonable, and accordingly the man found guilty of retaining the same is not competent to be associated with the police force any further, it cannot be said that the punishment as meted out is disproportionate. Accordingly the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.