LALAN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner was caught red handed on 23.07.2000 while coming out from the house of one Sri Mahesh Shukla and there he admitted that he had love affairs with the daughter of said Sri Mahesh Shukla. In departmental enquiry, full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and, thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged that dismissal order by preferring W.P. (S) No. 2757 of 2003 which was partly allowed vide order dated 05.03.2009 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the quantum of punishment. The same authority, thereafter in detail, reconsidered the matter and passed the same order of dismissal of petitioner from service. The petitioner again preferred writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5628 of 2009 which has been dismissed vide order dated 1st February, 2012, hence this L.P.A. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner, even it is taken as it is, then also, it was not even a case of moral turpitude as petitioner only admitted that he had love affairs with that girl/ lady and he was coming out from the house of that lady in the night and he was apprehended by the patrolling team. The learned Single Judge has used the word "illicit relation" which is not the fact nor even alleged in the charge against the petitioner.

(2.) We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and perused the detailed reason given in the subsequent order passed by the disciplinary authority, after the order of this Court dated 05.03.2009 and even if the word "illicit relation" has been mentioned in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2011, then this can be treated to be a relation having some immorality in view of the fact that the petitioner, in writing, admitted that he had no marital relation with the lady and he was in the house of that lady in the night and was coming out from that house and tried to run away as has been recorded even in the enquiry report at page 2 of Annexure-1 and further detail facts and circumstances have been considered in the order dated 30.09.2009 at page 5. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the order and are of the view that punishment is not shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency. Hence, the L.P.A. is dismissed.