RABINDRA KUMAR TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the State. Petitioner has sought quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 1185 dated 01.07.2004 passed by the respondent no. 4, Commandant Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribag whereunder he has been inflicted with punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the appellate order dated 08.01.2005 (Annexure-12) passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent no. 3, D.I.G. of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi whereby his appeal has been rejected. The petitioner has further sought direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Cook as per advertisement and selection and was working in Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribag. On 23.12.2003, he was suffering from headache and fever and he proceeded to take advice from the doctors at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag, who prescribed medicine and advised rest for two days, a copy of medical prescription is contained at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner was, however, placed under suspension with effect from 23.12.2003 by the Force Order No. 1564/03 dated 25.12.2003 as being absent from duty. The petitioner, thereafter, joined on 25.12.2003. However, Memo No. 152 dated 21.01.2004, was served upon the petitioner under the orders of respondent no. 4 with two charges in which the first charge is that he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 23.12.2003 to 25.12.2003 and thereafter, reported his joining. The second charge which, according to the petitioner, is vague in nature, it was alleged that he had earlier been given warning that on failure to improve his conduct, he will be removed from service. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the order of suspension the report of Sub-Inspector of Police was annexed, but the charge sheet did not reflect the instances of previous charges for which punishment was inflicted upon him. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by one Sub-Inspector (Armed), Jharkhand Armed Police-7 and no evidences were produced on behalf of the prosecution/presenting officer to substantiate any of the charges. It is submitted that enquiry report was submitted Vide-Annexure-7 dated 27.05.2004 whereunder in spite of the fact that no witnesses were examined or cross-examined, the finding of misconduct of the petitioner was rendered and his show cause was not accepted. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had categorically submitted in his show cause that he was not feeling well on 23.12.2003 and thereafter, he was examined by Medical Officer of the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag and was advised rest, whereafter he resumed duty only after two days. It is also submitted that he was present in the campus of the JAP, but due to his illness, he could not perform his duty.

(3.) Thereafter, the second show cause, Annexure-8 dated 04.06.2008, was issued stating that petitioner should explain as to why he should not be removed from service. Petitioner submitted his show cause vide Annexure-9 refuting the finding recorded in the enquiry report and stating that he is sole bread earner of the family where small children and old father and mother are dependent upon him. He has also submitted that he had produced the relevant medical certificates in support of his illness before the enquiry officer. Thereafter, the impugned order of punishment has been passed on 01.07.2004 whereby the petitioner has been made to compulsory retire. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police vide Annexure-11, which has been rejected and the impugned order of punishment has also been confirmed vide order dated 08.01.2005 (Annexure-12).