ANIL KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 8.12.2003, the appellate order dated 29.4.2004 and the revisional order dated 8.10.2005. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Bihar Military Police and at the relevant time in the year, 2003, he was posted as Constable Driver with Jharkhand Armed Police at Hazaribagh. On 5.7.2003 and 18.7.2003 one Raj Kumar Verma submitted a complaint against the petitioner and on such complaint, a charge memo dated 16.8.2003 was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that he had offered to purchase the Ambassador Car bearing No. BRN/6516 belonging to the complainant Raj Kumar Verma for Rs. 50,000/. He gave an advance of Rs. 101/and promised to pay the balance amount. However, after much effort he paid Rs. 20,000/ - to the complainant and refused to pay the balance amount of Rs. 30,000/ -, and therefore, he committed cheating and unauthorisedly retained the car with himself and thus, committed misconduct. Alongwith the charge memo the complaint dated 5.7.2003 and 18.7.2003 of the said Raj Kumar Verma, a copy of the inquiry report dated 11.8.2003 conducted by one Sri Alok, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the statement of Raj Kumar Verma, were supplied to the petitioner. In support of its case, the department proposed to examine as witnesses Raj Kumar Verma, Upen Singh and Brajesh Singh. An inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report was submitted whereunder the inquiry officer opined that in view of the materials on record the allegation against the petitioner becomes doubtful and therefore, the benefit of doubt can be given to the petitioner. However, by an order dated 8.12.2003, the disciplinary authority held that the charges against the petitioner are proved and therefore, he inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. The appeal as well as the revision petition preferred by the petitioner were also dismissed by orders dated 29.4.2004 and 8.10.2005 and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present application.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed stating as under:

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