JAGARNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction/ order in the nature of certiorari quashing the initiation of a departmental proceeding and dismissing the petitioner from the post of Writer Constable by Respondent No. 1 to 3 in confirmation of the order passed by Respondent No. 4

(2.) The petitioner, it is stated, was appointed as Writer Constable against a permanent vacant post by an Order No 670 dated 22-2-1974 with effect from 1-1-1972 and was entrusted with the work of despatcher in the office of B.M.P. 7 Katihar and his work was found to be satisfactory by the concerned authorities. In the year 1977 when the petitioner was deprived of that work, he ventilated his grievances to the I.G.M.P.I. Bihar, who issued instruction by Order No. 670 dated 22-2-1974 to all the Commandants to take work from the Writer Constables who had been appointed as such. In reply to Memo No. 2273 dated 11-7-1977 by the Commandant B M. P. 7 Katihar, the Additional Inspector General, B. M. P., Bihar, Patna issued a direction to the effect that the petitioner having been appointed as Writer Constable, should be posted in another Company and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner was transferred from E Company to D 2 (4) Company by an order dated 29-8-1977 (annexure-2). That a Command dated 3-9-1977 was issued to join at D Company on the post of Writer Constable an 1 he joined the said post at Kursella and took charges of valuable documents, papers etc from one Kamleshwary Prasad Singh on 16-9-1977 (Annexure-3). The petitioner was moving with that Company as Writer Constable from place to place and he was never assigned for rifles duties from the Company Commander. In the year 1980 he made a prayer to the Additional I.G.M.P. to give him a chance to appear at the departmental examination for promotion to the post of Additional Sub- Inspector as he would have been eligible for that post only after passing the departmental examination and this move of the petitioner caused annoyance to his higher officers of the B. M, P. 7, who managed to make out a case of disobedience of the order of the incharge Company Commander while he (petitioner) was on deputation at Muzaffarpur, Railway Station. In violation of the rule, the Company Commandant deputed the petitioner for outdoor duty knowingly that the petitioner would not perform that duty being a Writer Constable in order to make a way to remove him from service or to punish him. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice on 16-5-1980 stating various charges of disobedience, of which he submitted a detailed explanation but inspite of that, a departmental enquiry was set up bearing No. 18 of 1980 and thereafter be was dismissed from service by Respondent No. 4.

(3.) Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Higher authorities, but the same was also dismissed. That all the orders passed against the petitioner for dismissing him from service are bad in law, without jurisdiction and had been passed with a mala fide intention inasmuch as, instead of a minor, a major punishment has been inflicted on him despite his 18 year's service in the department without any adverse remark in violation of Rule 661 of the Police Manual.