RAM NARAYAN RAMAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The the Petitioner challenges the order dated 21.12.2006 vide D.O. No. 537/06, passed by the Inspector General - cum-Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby, the earlier order of punishment awarded to the Petitioner on 27.05.2002 by the Superintendent of Police, Padma, Hazaribagh has been enhanced after a lapse of four years. The punishment of compulsory, retirement is awarded by means of the the impugned order. The previous order of punishment was withholding increment of one year equivalent to two black marks.

(2.) The Petitioner was posted as a Constable, D.P.C. 50 in the JAP, Padma, Hazaribagh. On 13.01.2001, while on Santri duty, the Petitioner was found sleeping at 12:30 hrs. At the relevant time, magazine of rifle loaded with five round cartridge of Constable No. 132 Naresh Kumar was found missing in suspicious circumstances. The allegation was that theft occurred on account of negligence of the Petitioner and thereby he was charged for dereliction of duty. This was the first charge mentioned in the chargesheet. The second one was that Naresh Kumar asked the Petitioner to inspect his pocket which he refused and the third charge was that the Petitioner did not make any attempt to search for the lost magazine and the cartridges.

(3.) After issuance of chargesheet, a regular inquiry was conducted and he was awarded the punishment of withholding of one increment for one year equivalent to two black mark. The Petitioner did not prefer an appeal and served out the sentence. After the period of punishment lapsed, he made representation for his promotion to the superior officer. The DIG, instead of granting any promotion, made a recommendation for enhancement of his punishment to the Director General of Police. Consequently, a show-cause dated 4th September, 2004 was issued by the D.I.G. (Budget) as to why he may not be dismissed from the service. A detailed reply was filed by the Petitioner but by means of the impugned order dated 21.12.2006, the Petitioner was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement.