BRAJESH KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who on being appointed as a Cade Sub-Inspector of Police, was directed to join the Police Training College under the charge of Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Training) cum-Principal, Hazaribagh, Respondent no. 4. During the course of his training, the petitioner received the order contained in Annexure 1 by which he has been removed from Service as Cadet Sub-Inspector of Police. He preferred an appeal against the said removal to the Inspector-General of Police Bihar, Patna, Respondent No. 2, but the same was rejected and so also his further appeal to the State Government, Respondent No. 1, The orders passed by the respective authorities are contained in Annexure 1, 2 and 3. By this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders contained in these Annexures, viz., 1, 2 and.

(2.) The petitioner is said to have been absent for forty-four days from his training without taking permission for doing So. Besides, the petitioner is said to be not fit for the responsibility of a member of the Police Department. According to the petitioner, however, his absence was not unauthorised and he has tried to explain in his petition as to how the absence was not so, In their counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that a Cadet while on training can be absent from training for no reason other than injury received in training or on duty such as a fall during the course of learning riding or an accident in the playing field. According to the respondents, the petitioner was really absent in an unauthorised manner and since strict discipline is required to be observed for such a job with which the petitioner had been entrusted, he could not be retained in service.

(3.) The short argument made on behalf of the petitioner is that his removal from service had been made after attaching a stigma to his career and, therefore, it was incumbent, on the authorities to follow the procedure prescribed for such action in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It has been stated that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing against the charges on which he has been removed.