DINESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a constable in the State Police, has been dismissed from service after a departmental proceeding by issue of an order dated 21/09/2002, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Rail Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (vide Annexure-4). The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of punishment has also been dismissed by order dated 14/08/2003 by the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Rail D.I.G. of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide Annexure-5. The petitioner has challenged these two orders in this writ petition.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that on 19/10/2001, the petitioner was posted at Tatanagar Rail Police Station and he was on duty at Platform Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. It is said that while performing his duties along with two other constables namely, Borhan Das and Budhi Tuti, he illegally realized a sum of Rs. 140/- from a passenger namely Bhagwan Das. An F.I.R. was registered against them under Sections 384/34 and 411 IPC on the basis of Fardbeyan of the passenger Bhagwan Das. The petitioner was arrested at the spot and the money illegally realized by him from the passenger was recovered from his possession. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and they were tried by the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Chakradharpur. Simultaneously, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner for the said very charge of illegally realizing a sum of Rs. 140/- from the aforesaid passenger in discharge of his official duties. The petitioner was put under suspension. In the departmental proceeding, the charges against the petitioner was found to be established and then on the basis of the findings in the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 21/09/2002, contained in Annexure-4 passed an order awarding the punishment for dismissal from service. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal before the D.I.G., which was also dismissed on 14/08/2003, vide order contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the other two constables namely, Borhan Das and Budhi Tuti, who were also similarly charged and were departmentally proceeded but they have been let off by awarding the punishment of reversion to the initial pay scale for five years vide order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereas the petitioner has been awarded the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. It is submitted that in awarding punishment for the same charge two different standards have been adopted. Further, according to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration the fact that in the criminal case the petitioner was acquitted from the same charges by a competent criminal court. It is also submitted that while awarding punishment the mandatory provision of Rule 826 of the Police Mannual has not been taken into consideration. Lastly, it was submitted that the copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner causing prejudice to him and, therefore, the impugned orders passed against him was vitiated.