LAWS(PAT)-1998-8-28

SHYAM DEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On August 06, 1998
SHYAM DEO SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his order of dismissal as also the order passed by the appellate and the revisional authority confirming the said order and also the final order passed by the Director General of Police (Annexure -6) on his memorial. The charge against the petitioner is one of disobedience of command and remaining absent for 22 days.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceeding which was conducted against the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid charges was conducted improperly and unfairly and illegally without intimating the date of examination of the prosecution witness Ram Ratan Singh and without supplying him copy of the deposition and without fixing the date of examination of defence witnesses. The petitioner has stated in paragraphs 6, 9 and 14 of the writ petition that the Enquiry Officer suppressed the real position and claimed to have sent intimation at the home address of the petitioner whereas the petitioner was attending the police line. Learned counsel further submitted that the finding of the Enquiry Officer has also not been served upon him. Such non -furnishing of the enquiry report amounts to breach of Appendix 49 which contains the rules for proceedings for departmental punishment and sub -para (iv) of para 7 of the said Appendix provides that a copy of the findings of the conducting officer should be given to the delinquent without delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non -compliance of the said rules makes the proceeding liable to be set aside. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of dismissal for absence of 22 days is very harsh and disproportionate to the offence and this Court should quash the same.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also relied upon various un -reported decisions of this Court which have been disclosed by way of supplementary affidavit to the writ petition. Those judgments, mainly, are concerned with the question of quantum. In one of those judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 701 of 1995 (Bishwanath Ram vs. State of Bihar and others) the learned Judge set aside the order of punishment which was passed for absence from duty for 34 days. The learned Judge also quashed the appellate order and held that the petitioner is entitled for the salary for the entire intervening period in accordance with law and made it clear that the respondents, however, are at liberty to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law commensurate with the allegations as mentioned in the chargesheet.