BHAGIRATH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A chargesheet was issued against the petitioner wherein it was alleged that on a particular date a few of the persons including the petitioner went to the Sergeant Major and asked for grant of leave. The Sergeant Major granted leave to a few but refused leave, amongst others, to the petitioner. It was next alleged that after that the Sergeant Major closed his office and while returning home stopped by the side of a Public Call Office (PCO) when the petitioner and two other persons came and hackled the Sergeant Major while abusing him in the view of the public at large. It was alleged that this conduct on the part of the petitioner is so derogative that it has completely destroyed the reputation of the police force and accordingly why appropriate action shall not be taken against him.

(2.) INITIALLY in the charge -sheet it was shown that the Sergeant Major and one other person will be examined. Later on, five more persons were examined. It is an admitted position that while the ergeant Major deposed he was cross -examined by the petitioner as would be evidenced from the reply to the second show -cause notice given by the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner had no opportunity to. cross -examine the second witness. Admittedly, one Mr. Thakur, a barber was examined and the petitioner refused to cross -examine him. The barber deposed that the Sergeant Major was on the spot on the date and time, as was alleged in the charge -sheet, when some people came and they created a hue and cry. He had stated, however, that he did not see the persons who raised such hue and cry. The other four witnesses said that they have seen nothing. The Sergeant Major, however, narrated the entire incident and faced cross -examination but could not be shaken.

(3.) IT is not the contention in the writ petition that in cross -examination the evidence of the Sergeant Major was shaken. On the basis of the collection of materials as above, the petitioner has been dismissed from services. The principal reason for the charge sheet was that the action complained of is so derogatory that the same has lowered the estimation of the police force in the eyes of common public. If the fact that the Sergeant Major, a Senior Police Officer has been hackled in public view by his juniors or by one of his juniors is proved, it goes without saying that the charge that the action was derogatory to the discipline of the police force in public eyes also automatically stands proved. In such a situation, probably the disciplinary authority had no other option but to pass the order as has been passed in the instant case.