PARAS NATH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 31.10.1987 (Annexure -2) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa (respondent no. 6) dismissing the petitioner, who was a constable and also for quashing orders dated 8.9.1988 (Annexure -4), 16.6.1989 (Annexure -5) and 22.9.1992 (Annexure -8), by which the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa (respondent no. 5), Zonal Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga (respondent no. 4) and Director General of Police, Bihar (respondent no. 3) dismissed his respective appeal, memorial and representation filed by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal and also for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a constable after due process on 24.4.1975, whereafter he continued in service and while he was posted in the district of Saharsa at Jadia Police Station, a charge was framed on 4.11.1986 (Annexure -1) by the Superintendent of Police (respondent no. 6) with respect to gross misconduct, indiscipline and behaviour not befitting the Police personnel. The allegation against the petitioner was that in the night of 31.7.1986, he abused and assaulted one Pramod Kumar Sah of Jadia Bazar in the Police Station, due to which there was a furore and when the Inspector of Police and Sub -Inspector of Police asked him to refrain from such act, the petitioner also abused them in filthy language and also that brought a bottle of wine at the Police Station and was drinking wine in the Police Station and he used filthy language against the Inspector of Police and also boasted that he would not allow the Officer Incharge to return to the Police Station. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which proceeded in accordance with law including issuance of show -cause notice etc., whereafter, show -cause was submitted by the petitioner. However, it transpires that three witnesses deposed in the case including the Inspector of Police, who fully supported the charges but the petitioner cross - examined only one of the witnesses although full opportunity was given to him to cross -examine other witnesses. However, when he was asked to produce his witnesses, he produced one Havildar Rajeshwar Yadav, who only stated that no such occurrence had taken place in his presence. It was found that the said Havildar was posted in the said Police Station only till June, 1986. whereafter he only came there once on 22.12.1986, whereas, the occurrence was of 31.7.1986 and hence there was no occasion for the said witness to be present in the Police Station on the date and time of the occurrence according to his own submissions. The other witness of the petitioner refused to depose.

(3.) AGAIN notice was issued and opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his show cause by 25.8.1987 but when he did not file his second show cause the time was extended to 10.9.1987. But even then he did not submit his show cause although the information was sent to him and he received the same, which was proved by the materials on record. In the said circumstances, the enquiry officer found that the charges against the petitioner were fully proved by oral and documentary evidence and he was unable to validly deny the same by any reliable evidence.