DHIRAJ KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly against the order passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police -6, Jamshedpur, dated 13 July, 2007 (Annexure -3 to the memo of the petition), whereby, the services of the present petitioner has been brought to an end by patting an allegation against the present petitioner that one F.I.R. bearing Lakhisarai Police Station Case No. 95 of 2007 dated 4 March, 2007 under Sections 341, 336, 504, 307 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 24 of the Arms Act is filed against the present petitioner and therefore, his services have been brought to an end. Against this order, the present petition has been preferred.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the termination of the services of the present petitioner is not a termination simplicitor, but, it is a termination punitive and allegation levelled against the present petitioner, in tire impugned order, tantamounts to stigma upon the services of the present petitioner and therefore, there ought to have been a notice/charge -sheet given to the petitioner and there ought to have been departmental enquiry, against the present petitioner, but, in the facts of the present case, never such notice or enquiry has ever been conducted by the respondents. So far as the alleged F.I.R. is concerned, the petitioner has been exonerated from the competent trial court vide order dated 25 September, 2007 in Sessions Case No. 521 of 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -II, Lakhisarai (order at Annexure -2 to the memo of the petition). Thus, the very basis, which was alleged against the present petitioner, for termination of the services has been ended into an order of acquittal and no criminal appeal has been preferred by the State, against the order of acquittal. On civil side never any notice nor any hearing has been given to the petitioner and services of the petitioner has been terminated for the reason that the petitioner is involved in the F.I.R. without appreciating Rule 844 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. As per this Rule 844, whenever any criminal case is resulted into conviction or acquittal or discharge, it will be considered by the high ranking police officer. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Rule, upon which reliance has been placed in the impugned order i.e. Rule 668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual is applicable only when the termination is simplicitor. In the facts of the present case, allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner and the petitioner has been terminated from the services and therefore, this termination is a punitive, for which, charge -sheet on civil side and an enquiry is required and therefore, the impugned order at Annexure -3 passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police -6, Jamshedpur dated 13 July, 2007, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shileshwar Prasad Verma and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. as reported in, 2009(3) JLJR 437.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: