BARMESHWAR NATH SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether non-supply of enquiry report before issuance of a show-cause notice by the disciplinary authority inviting objection to the proposed penalty, would vitiate the order of penalty dated 10.8.2001. The facts disclosed in the writ petition are that the petitioner while posted as a constable in Padmda Police Station in District-Singhbhum, had proceeded with the officer-in-charge of the police station on a secret information received in the night of 24/25.9.2000 that theft would be committed from a godown at Handubani near Swarnrekha river, was apprehended by the villagers. A First Information Report was lodged being Padmda P.S. Case No. 66 of 2000 registered under Sections 461, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the said officer-in-charge of the police station. The petitioner was suspended with effect from 6.10.2000 and a departmental proceeding was initiated. On 20.6.2001, the Superintendent of Police issued a show-cause notice along with the enquiry report to the petitioner to submit his defence as to why his service be not terminated. Again, the second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.7.2001 and the petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice however, by order dated 10.8.2001, the respondent No. 4 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3 which was dismissed on 29.10.2001. In these circumstances, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has not been denied that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to submit his reply to the enquiry report. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner along with the show-cause notice dated 20.6.2001 issued by the respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Police. A second show-cause notice was also issued on 25.7.2001 to which the petitioner submitted his reply.

(3.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.