BIRJU PRASAD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order of punishment as contained in memo dated 30. 04. 2015 (Annexure-8), passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the said respondent after differing with the finding submitted by the Conducting Officer, passed the order of punishment by stopping the increment of the petitioner for 2 years, which is equivalent to 3 black marks.

(3.) The facts of the case in short is that petitioner joined as Constable on 17. 02. 1977 and from time to time, he was promoted to higher posts and at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector (Armed) in Jharkhand Armed Force-2, Wing Tatisilway, Ranchi and was on deputation in D. Company. It is the case of the petitioner that an allegation was levelled against him that 100 ltrs. of diesel provided to run the generator has been tried to be sell-out but because of the protest and agitation made by the constables, the petitioner could not succeed in the same. Other allegations were also levelled against him. Thereafter, respondent No. 5, Sri Anand Prakash, Dy. Superintendent of Police- cum-Inquiry Officer conducted enquiry on 24. 05. 2014 and found the petitioner guilty of the said charges. Then, the respondent No. 3, Commandant, JAP-2, Tatisilway, Ranchi vide order dated 19. 06. 2014 (Annexure-1), suspended the petitioner with immediate effect fixing his headquarter at Jharkhand Armed Police-2, Tatisilway and held that during the period of suspension, the petitioner will get the subsistence allowance only. Subsequently, on 20. 06. 2014 (Annexure- 2), the respondent No. 3 framed charges for the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his clarification on 14. 07. 2017 (Annexure-3), wherein, he had denied the charges levelled against him. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the clarification given by him has not been accepted by the respondents and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the disciplinary proceeding initially respondent No. 5 was appointed as Conducting Officer, who recorded the statements of the witnesses. However, considering the fact that respondent No. 3 having not found justified in allowing him to be an Enquiry Officer, appointed Smt. Amelda Ekka, Sr. Dy. S. P. (respondent No. 4) as Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, respondent No. 4, vide her letter dated 30. 01. 2015 (Annexure-5), asked the petitioner to submit explanation in defence by 12. 02. 2015, in response to which, the petitioner through application dated 12. 02. 2015 (Annexure-6) submitted his explanation to the respondent No. 4. The Enquiry Officer (respondent No. 4), after perusal of the statements made by the witnesses and upon going through the explanation submitted by the petitioner has submitted a detailed finding dated 19. 03. 2015 (Annexure-7), holding the petitioner innocent. The respondent No. 3, disciplinary authority, after perusal of the inquiry report and findings submitted by respondent No. 4, differed with the same and hold the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and inflicted punishment of stoppage of 2 increments vide order dated 30. 04. 2015 (Annexure-8).