VARUN KUMAR YADAV, S/O LATE YOGENDRA PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged his dismissal order issued by the Superintendent of Police, Rail, Patna vide Memo No. 402 dated 29.02.2008 (Annexure-3), the order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure-2) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rail, Bihar, Patna has been rejected and the Memorial No. 2656 dated 06.05.2011, as contained in Annexure-1 whereby and whereunder the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna upheld the dismissal of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the District Police, Saharsa on 20.11.1981 and was transferred at various places and the last posting being at GRP, Danapur, Patna. On 28.06.2006, on secret information that the police personnel deployed in the GRP are demanding money from the passengers in lieu of providing them seat in the compartment, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rail, Bihar, Patna at 250 hours along with Inspector cum SHO, GRP, Patna conducted a raid in the general coach attached to Train No. 3246 Down Danapur-New Jalpaiguri Capital Express in civil dress. During raid the petitioner was found in the coach without his name plate. When the DIG, who was in civil dress, asked for the rate for entering and travelling in the said coach from the petitioner and other constable Sidheshwar Rai, they disclosed the rate of Rs. 20/- for seating and Rs. 30/- for sleeping. On the basis of the said checking, a report by way of complaint was lodged by the DIG, Rail, pusuant to which a disciplinary proceeding being No. 59/2006 was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was put under suspension vide Memo No. 694 dated 29.06.2006 by office order No. 1266/2006 as contained in Annexure-4. Thereafter charges were framed against the petitioner under order dated 03.07.2006 as contained in Annexure-5 and departmental proceeding No. 59/2006 was initiated against the petitioner. A show cause reply was filed by the petitioner on 05.07.2006 denying the said allegation stating therein that the two persons present in the said coach at the relevant time, namely, Mahendra Prasad and Kartik Prasad of Chitkohra, Patna be examined. Simultaneously, vide letter dated 15.09.2006 (Annexure-6) the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to conduct examination of witnesses in his presence and he be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioner also stated in his show cause reply that the exhibits enumerated in the memo of charges i.e. district order No. 1266/2006 and the complaint vide letter No. 365 dated 29.06.2006 of the DIG, Rail, Bihar, Patna has not been supplied to him. The petitioner also stated in his show cause that in absence of supply of exhibits he is not able to give a complete reply. He further stated that because of a large crowd at the platform, his name plate must have fallen, which was an inadvertent mistake. He further stated in his show cause reply that so many passengers were present in the coach but none of them were produced as witness.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajendra Prasad assisted by Kumar Rajeev submits that the respondents have not followed the principle of natural justice. The complaint petition of the Deputy Inspector General was not supplied to him and the departmental proceeding is vitiated on the ground that the enquiry was held behind the back of the petitioner, documents were not supplied and the petitioner was not granted opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He further submits that the complainant was not examined by the Enquiry Officer and no adverse statement has been made by the official witnesses and in absence of any material the order of punishment of dismissal from service is bad in law and, hence, is fit to be set aside.