VINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner-Appellant is aggrieved against the order passed in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1966 of 2009. As per the facts of the case, the Petitioner who was holding the post of constable was charge-sheeted and in departmental enquiry, he was punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement. The Petitioner challenged the said departmental enquiry and the punishment by preferring an appeal, which too was dismissed and thereafter ultimately the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge; hence this L.P.A by writ Petitioner.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, a bare perusal of the charge will show that the charges were vague as well as per se contradictory - in one charge, it has been stated that the Petitioner was found in drunken state in railway platform, whereas in another charge, it has been stated that the Petitioner was not found on the railway platform and in third charge again, it has been stated that Petitioner was found on platform No. 7. Learned Counsel for Appellant also submitted that the Petitioner was not made aware that his past punishment will be taken into consideration while punishing the Petitioner and in the departmental enquiry, it has been observed that the Petitioner was punished eight times earlier for major misconduct and, therefore, the Petitioner has been twice punished which is contrary to the principle of double jeopardy. It is also submitted that the doctor was not examined even when it was alleged that the Petitioner was examined by the doctor. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P and Ors., 1999 8 SCC 582and Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors. v. HC Narinder Singh, 2004 13 SCC 342.