RAMJEE PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of penalty dated 27.11.1998, the appellate order dated 24.07.2001, the order dated 16.02.2003 passed in the Memorial and the order dated 07.07.2004 passed on the representation preferred by this petitioner, pursuant to order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11664 of 1999 (P). The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was suspended on 02.12.1996 and a charge memo dated 30.09.1997 was served on the allegations that on 24.11.1996, he assaulted one Rameshwar Pandit and caused grievous injuries to him and he remained absent for more than three months unauthorisedly. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and on conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted holding the charges against the petitioner proved. Second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.10.1998 and after considering the materials on record, the penalty order dated 27.11.1998 was passed, dismissing the petitioner from service. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 24.07.2001 and the Memorial preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 16.02.2003. Pursuant to order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11664 of 1999 (P), the petitioner preferred representation to the authorities, which was dismissed by order dated 07.07.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the petitioner has approached this Court.

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

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that in view of charges levelled against the petitioner, and the findings recorded, the order of penalty of dismissal from service is definitely excessive and disproportionate to the charges framed and found proved against the petitioner. He further submits that the specific defence of the petitioner that the said Rameshwar Pandit had pointed his rifle at him and when he ran away Rameshwar Pandit chased him and fell down and thus got injured, has not been verified either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority and on that count alone ultimate conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, is erroneous and requires interference by this Court.