SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 27.04.2011 and the appellate order dated 21.02.2013. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 27.11.2004 and he proceeded for 20 days' leave on 26.09.2008. The petitioner was to report for duty on 16.10.2008 however, he could not resume his duties due to family dispute and he was involved in a criminal case registered on 09.11.2008. In the meantime, the petitioner was suspended by order dated 15.05.2009. A charge-memo dated 13.08.2009 was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that he remained absent for 286 days unauthorizedly. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice however, it was not found satisfactory and therefore, an enquiry was initiated in which, the charge against the petitioner was held to be proved. The petitioner was issued a second show-cause notice however, a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 27.04.2011 and thereafter, he preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal. In the meantime, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court by order dated 05.04.2012 however, this fact was not considered by the appellate authority and his appeal was dismissed by order dated 21.02.2013. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since in the charge-memo itself, it has been recorded that the petitioner got involved himself in a criminal case and he remained in a judicial custody, the charge of unauthorized absence of 286 days was improper. He has further submitted mat since the petitioner was involved in a false criminal case in which, he has been acquitted by the trial court by order dated 05.04.2012, this fact was relevant for deciding the appeal of the petitioner however, the appellate authority has ignored this aspect of the matter and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 21.02.2013, which does not disclose any application of mind by the appellate authority. He has relied on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, 1999 3 SCC 679, which has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent cases and which still holds the field.