KAPILDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service dated 18.09.2000 passed by the Superintendent of Police in departmental proceeding No. 18/99 and order dated 06.10.2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range. Ranchi whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Bihar Police in the year 1981 and at the relevant time he was posted at Lohardaga. By order dated 13.08.1998 petitioner and another constable were deputed to escort one under-trial prisoner namely, Uday Oraon to T.B. Sanatorium at Itki for his medical treatment. However, the patient was transferred to Ranchi Medical College and Hospital (hereinafter referred to as R.M.C.H.) for better treatment where he was admitted on 14.08.1998 and the said under-trial prisoner remained under treatment in R.M.C.H. till 22.08.1998. However, due to heavy rain the patient (under-trial prisoner) could not be taken to Lohardaga and only on 24.08.1998 the patient was taken out from Hospital to Ranchi Railway Station where on 24.08.1998 itself the said under-trial prisoner died. The matter was reported to the Sub-Jail Superintendent at Lohardaga. The petitioner was served a charge-memo dated 15.07.1999 on the allegation of dereliction of duty, misconduct, negligence and incapacity to perform police duty. On conclusion of enquiry, the charges against the petitioner were found proved and the report of the enquiry officer in departmental proceeding No. 18/99 was submitted on 30.07.2000. The petitioner submitted his reply to the proposed punishment of dismissal from service refuting all the charges leveled against him however, the order of dismissal from service dated 18.09.2000 was passed by the Respondent No. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal from service dated 18.09.2000. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal and did not agree with the order of dismissal from service passed by the Superintendent of Police, however, by order dated 06.09.2002 the Appellate Authority directed the Superintendent of Police (Respondent No. 3) to re-open the file relating to departmental proceeding against the petitioner and to submit a report after verifying certain facts. It appears that pursuant to order dated 06.09.2002 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, a report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police and after considering the said report the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 06.10.2002. In these facts and circumstances the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that charges leveled against the petitioner were serious in nature and the charges were found proved in the departmental enquiry and therefore, the order of dismissal from service was passed. It has further been stated that by order dated 06.09.2002 the Respondent No. 2 raised certain queries and sought a report from Respondent No. 3 for his own satisfaction and as such the report given by the Respondent No. 3 might not have been furnished to the petitioner. Additionally, a plea has been raised that the petitioner is not entitled for supply of a copy of the report furnished by the Respondent No. 3 to the Respondent No. 2 pursuant to order dated 06.09.2002 and a further plea has been taken that it was not proper to supply to the petitioner the copy of the report prepared by the Respondent No. 3.

(3.) Another counter-affidavit dated 03.08.2011 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 in which a contrary plea has been taken that the report submitted in the light of order dated 06.09.2002 of the Respondent No. 2, was furnished to the petitioner.