SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 13.9.97 by which he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 31.8.97; the appellate order dated 13.11.97 and order passed in memorial dated 27.4.98.

(2.) AS the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. The petitioner was functioning as a permanent constable under the respondent -State and was posted in the Rail Police Centre, Patna. The Dy.S.P. (Railway), Patna made a complaint against him on 31.7.96. It was alleged that on 30.7.1996, while he was coming by Shramjeevi Express and reached Patna at 7 a.m. on 30.7.96, found the petitioner checking railway tickets from one of the passengers in platform no.1. When he asked the petitioner his identity, the petitioner kept mum. Alongwith the said Dy.S.P., two constable, namely, Biswanath Sharma and Ram Bachan Kumar, who were there, were asked to take the petitioner alongwith them but the petitioner ran away by crossing railway line. The aforesaid constable and Havildar Indrajeet Mandal later on told him the name of petitioner, who is posted at Patna Junction. It was reported that he has come to know that he is absent from police line, showing him sick. It was further intimated that in the morning trains like Punjab Mail, Maurya Express, Poorva Express, 11 Up, Shramjeevi Express, Magadh Express, this type of constable in collusion with T.Cs. in absence of T.T. Es., collected money from passengers. Sometimes constable and Havildar of outside also come to the Patna Junction Platform and check tickets of passengers. Presently large number of R. P.F., Constable and Havildar are found checking tickets alongwith T.Cs. On receipt of such report, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.7.96 and chargesheet was also served on him Vide Memo no. 747 dated 31.7.96. In the chargesheet, it was alleged that though petitioner was posted in the Rly. Police Centre, Patna on 30.7.96 at 7 a.m., he was found checking ticket from passengers, who came out of Shramjeevi Express, and was caught by Sri Anand Kumar Singh, Dy. S.P. (Rail), Patna (West). On query, he could not give satisfactory reply. It was alleged that in spite of specific order that no constable will roam unnecessary in the platform in plain dress, the petitioner violated the order and in plain dress worked as T.T.E. in platform no.1 and was found checking tickets. The aforesaid action shows doubtful integrity and dereliction of duty. An enquiry officer was appointed to hold enquiry. Before the enquiry officer, the petitioner did not choose to submit his written statement of defence. In absence of the same, the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry ex parte, and examined the witnesses. The petitioner at the closure of enquiry, submitted his written statement denying the charges whereinafter the enquiry officer submitted his report on 30.6.97. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges. The respondents thereafter issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner whereinafter the impugned order of punishment was passed on 23.9.97. The S.P. (Rail), Patna dismissed the petitioner from service w. e.f. 31.8.1997 (retrospective date). It was also ordered that the petitioner will not receive any 5/1/2013 Page 199 Surendra Mohan Sinha Versus State Of Bihar amount for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance received. The appeal and memorial, thereafter preferred by petitioner, were also dismissed vide orders dated 13.11.97 and 27.4.1998.

(3.) AT this stage, it is partinent to mention that for same allegation of checking ticket as T.T.E., another proceeding being case no. 33/96 was initiated against the petitioner which was pending for final decision. It appears that the enquiry officer has also held the petitioner guilty in the other case (case no. 33/96). For the said reason, the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order of dismissal on 23.9.97, took into consideration the report submitted in the aforesaid enquiry and passed the present impugned order.