(1.) The sole question involved in this case is whether the commandant on whose complaint, disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and who is also the disciplinary authority, would have passed the order of penalty dated 15.01.2011. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, on the complaint dated 14.12.2010, a charge memo. was served upon the petitioner on the allegations that he proved himself an irresponsible and negligent officer, as he could not properly instruct the two mahila police namely, Tara Rajni Barla and Amita Tigga. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.12.2010. However, as the explanation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, the Respondent No. 4 passed an order of penalty dated 15.01.2011. The Appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed on 19.09.2011.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.
(3.) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a contention that in view of Rule 854(c) of the Jharkhand Police Manual, the penalty order should not have been passed by the Respondent No. 4 rather, it should have been passed by another officer of the rank of Commandant. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2000 10 SCC 537.