MD. SHAHID Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of compulsory retirement by the impugned order contained at memo no. 1427 dated 26.5.2012(Annexure-7) passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police(JAP)-10, Hotwar, Ranchi in a departmental proceeding bearing no. 5 of 2012 initiated against him for certain alleged misconduct. The petitioner's appeal against the said order of punishment has also been rejected by the Appellate Authority cum Deputy Inspector General of Police, JAP, Ranchi vide order contained at memo no. 1351 dated 10.10.2012(Annexure-8) which is also impugned herein. The petitioner has consequently prayed for his reinstatement and full salary for the period he was out of service.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he was proceeded against under the charges issued on 18.2.2012 contained at memo no. 469 by the Commandant, JAP-10(Annexure-3) with the allegation that he had indulged in duping 28 persons by assuring job to them and in the process received approximately Rupees 7 lakhs from them. A preliminary inquiry conducted earlier had prima-facie found the petitioner involved in such misconduct for which he was placed under suspension by the said order at Annexure-3 and the departmental proceeding was initiated. The petitioner furnished show cause in response to the said initiation of the departmental proceeding vide Annexure-4 dated 28.2.2012. There after the departmental proceeding was conducted by the Inquiry Officer who found the charges against the petitioner established and submitted his inquiry report on 10.5.2012 vide Annexure-6 holding the petitioner guilty of the said misconduct for having duped 28 persons in the name of getting government job. In the background of the aforesaid facts, which need not be gone into in much detail in the present writ petition, the sole ground to challenge the impugned orders by the petitioner is that the order of punishment has been passed without serving the copy of the inquiry report and second show cause to him. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this infirmity goes to the root of the conduct of the departmental proceeding and vitiates the same. A categorical statement has been made in para 18 and 45 of the writ petition that the impugned order of punishment was passed without issuance of second show cause notice. The said categorical assertion made by the petitioner have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit as would appear from para 20 of the said counter affidavit. As a matter of fact, the respondents have stated at para 20 of the counter affidavit that in case of compulsory retirement the requirement of second show cause is not mandatory. This is required in case of dismissal from service under Rule 828(B) of the Police Manual.