SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING order of dismissal dated 14.10.2012 and the appellate order dated 07.04.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an advertisement dated 13.01.2004, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable. The petitioner appeared in the physical test conducted on 26.07.2004 and on being successful, he was appointed as constable on 10.05.2005. On 27.03.2012, a charge -memo was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that he gave wrong information of his being Home Guard in his application form and he had obtained identity -card through wrongful means. On 29.05.2012, the petitioner submitted his reply however, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After the enquiry report was submitted on 30.08.2012, a second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.09.2012, which was replied by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal from service on 14.10.2012 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed on 07.04.2013.

(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4, stating as under: - -

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions namely, (i) the charge against the petitioner was vague and therefore, the petitioner was denied an effective opportunity to meet the charges, and (ii) under the provisions of the Bihar Home Guards Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner was a Home Guard and since it has been found by the departmental authorities that the identity -card produced by the petitioner was not obtained by wrongful means, the order of penalty removing the petitioner from service is based on 'no evidence' and therefore, liable to be quashed.