KAMLESH DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner in W.P.(S) No.329 of 2017 has challenged the order contained in Memo No.1031/Go. dtd. 1/6/2016, whereby he has been dismissed from service after conclusion of a departmental enquiry. He has also challenged the order contained in Memo No.1570/Go. dtd. 7/10/2016 passed by the Appellate Authority-the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Paragana Range, Dumka, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. Petitioner in has challenged the order contained in Memo No.1037/Go. dtd. 1/6/2016 by which he has been dismissed after conclusion of departmental enquiry. He has also challenged the order contained in Memo No.1572/Go. dtd. 7/10/2016 passed by the Appellate Authority-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Paragana Range, Dumka, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(3.) Two departmental proceedings were initiated under two different memos against the petitioners for misconduct, committed jointly by them. Charge against both the petitioners are that on 28/11/2005, both the petitioners being police personnel, in an intoxicated state, were misbehaving and assaulting general public near Cinemal Hall at Maheshpur. Due to the acts of these petitioners, 50-60 persons assembled there and there was serious threat to law and order in the area. After receiving such information, higher police officers reached the place when petitioner Kamlesh Dubey [W.P.(S) No.329 of 2017] fled from the place of occurrence, but petitioner Gunadhar Singh [] was escorted to the police station. Petitioner Kamlesh Dubey returned to the police station. They were sent to police barrack. Polo Ghosh and Lalu Yadav and other 50-60 persons arrived at the police station and they demanded to take action against these two petitioners. These two petitioners with arms came out and started misbehaving with the police personnel. They misbehaved with higher police officers and also fired, which added fuel to the fire. They entered into scuffle with other police officers. On the aforesaid allegations, which is a misconduct, both the petitioners were proceeded against in separate departmental proceedings. Chargesheets were submitted to which the petitioners replied. An enquiry officer took evidence of the witnesses and thereafter submitted enquiry report. It was the case of the petitioners that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to participate in the departmental proceeding. On the grievance raised by the petitioner, opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and witnesses were re- examined and the petitioners were given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Thereafter a fresh enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, passed an order of punishment dismissing both the petitioners from service. Against the said order, appeals were also preferred by the petitioners, which were also dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid orders on the ground that no second show cause was served along with enquiry report, both the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.3515 of 2008 and W.P.(S) No.3517 of 2008. Both these writ petitions were allowed and the matter was remitted to proceed afresh from the stage of supply of second show cause notice. Thereafter second show cause notice was served along with enquiry report. Petitioners, thereafter, were punished and they were dismissed from service on the proved charge. The order of dismissal, so far as petitioner Kamlesh Dubey in W.P.(S) No. 329 of 2017 is concerned, is dtd. 1/6/2016 as contained in Memo No.1031/Go. and so far as petitioner Gunadhar Singh in is concerned, punishment order is dtd. 1/6/2016 as contained in Memo No.1037/Go. Both these petitioners approached the Appellate Authority by preferring appeals, which were dismissed by order dtd. 7/10/2016 as contained in Memo No.1570/Go. and order dtd. 7/10/2016 as contained in Memo No.1572/Go. respectively.