DINESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred against the departmental proceedings against the present petitioner whereby the present petitioner has been terminated from the services.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Constable in the police department and there are charges levelled against the present petitioner that he had consumed liquor on 10th October, 1992 and had gone at the house of Dr. Kanhaiya Dayal Sinha and had misbehaved with him and had insulted him by using filthy language. Second charge against the present petitioner was that at the police station also, the petitioner had misbehaved with other officers of the police department and third charge against the present petitioner is that even though he was stopped to behave like this, he had not obeyed and continued misconduct and when he was sent for medical report, then in stead of going to a doctor for medical examination, he had ran away. Thereafter, departmental inquiry was conducted, charges levelled against the present petitioner were proved and he was dismissed from the services. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter departmental appeal was preferred by the present petitioner and the appellate authority had considered the case of the present petitioner, matter was remanded, thereafter, the petitioner was terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition, which was allowed and again the matter was remanded to the departmental appellate authority for passing a detail speaking order and, thereafter, vide order at Annexure-4, departmental appellate authority has passed the order on 13th September, 2007 whereby the dismissal of the present petitioner has been confirmed and, therefore, the present petitioner has challenged the said order in this petition. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental appellate authority has not considered the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner had not consumed the alcohol and had not misbehaved with any of the police officer, looking to the order of the appellate authority. It is not a speaking order at all and, therefore, the order passed by the departmental appellate authority, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of petition, deserves to be quashed and set aside,.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:-