VINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders of punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the respondents upon the petitioner, who was a Constable in the Police Force of the respondents -State, because of several misconducts and therefore, the orders of compulsory retirement are under challenge, which are at Annexure -4 and 5, to the memo of the petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was working as a Constable with the respondents and he was working honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the whole departmental inquiry has been conducted ex -parte and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and hence, the inquiry officer's report, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Secondly, the orders, passed by the respondents of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct and hence, the order of punishment deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry report was never given to the petitioner, prior to imposing of the punishment upon the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that now detailed counter affidavit has been filed and looking to the nature of the charges, which are Annexure -1 to the memo of the petition, there are serious charges against the present petitioner, who was Constable. As on the date of incident i.e. on 16th April, 2006, delinquent was assigned a duty that he was to go with some other police force in a train No. 2817 UP, but, after taking fire arms, he consumed liquor and not gone with the police scout in the aforesaid train and he remained at the Dhanbad Railway Station. Second charge is that he was not available at the Dhanbad Railway Station and third charge is that under influence of liquor at platform No. 7 of Dhanbad Railway Station, he was abusing the co -passengers and thereafter, his rifle etc. was taken away from the petitioner for deposition in the concerned armory and he was sent to medical examination, where he was found having consumed liquor and then charge -sheet was issued. Inquiry officer was appointed. Inquiry was conducted and several opportunities were given to the petitioner to represent his case, but, he never presented before the inquiry officer and ultimately, the inquiry officer, on the basis of the evidence on record submitted report to the effect that the charges levelled against the petitioner, has been proved. The inquiry report is at Annexure -2 to the memo of the petition and thereafter, a copy of the inquiry report was also given to the petitioner and again, he was given an opportunity of making his representation for quantum of punishment. Upon receiving this inquiry report, a representation was made by the petitioner about the quantum of punishment etc. and thereafter, punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, after going through all the inquiry reports and proceedings. He was awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 17th July, 2007, which is at Annexure -3 to the memo of the petition. It also appears from the facts of the case that there are earlier misconducts also, which have been narrated in order at Annexure -3 to the memo of the petition. There are as many as eight earlier punishments, inflicted upon the petitioner. All these eight punishments are major in nature and out of these eight major punishments; four are for serious type of charges from 2006 onwards. Thus, between 2006 -07, there are four punishments or major misconducts and one more departmental inquiry bearing No. 23 of 2007 is pending and therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that there is no error in the departmental proceedings nor there is an error in inflicting the punishment and the punishment inflicted upon the present petitioner cannot be labelled as grossly disproportionate or shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct, committed by the present petitioner, on the contrary, much lenient view has been taken by giving respondents for imposing punishment of compulsory retirement so that he can get all the retirement benefits like pension, gratuity etc. otherwise, if he would have been dismissed, these retirement benefits would have been forfeited, as per the existing rules, applicable to the petitioner.