BIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 05.09.2005 passed by the Inspector General of Police whereby the earlier order dated 18.06.2005 has been recalled, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, initially the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 01.12.1986 and in the year 2003, he was transferred to Jamshedpur. On 20.10.2003, a charge-memo was served upon the petitioner on the charge that he was found drunk while on duty. In this regard Kuchu Munda, the Head Constable gave a written complaint. However, inspite of repeated warning, the petitioner did not improve himself. The officer incharge gave a written complaint upon which the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked by an order dated 14.11.2003. It appears that with respect to complaint dated 28.09.2003, a requisition was given to the medical officer to examine the petitioner whether he was drunk or not. The medical officer accordingly, examined the petitioner at 10.25 pm on 28.09.2003 and found that the petitioner was fully oriented and there was no bad breathe of alcohol from his mouth. After a departmental inquiry, the petitioner was initially removed from service by order dated 15.07.2004. The petitioner submitted his appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was dismissed by order dated 17.12.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his appeal Memorial to the Inspector General of Police, which was allowed on 18.06.2005 and the order of dismissal from service was quashed and the petitioner was reinstated in service. It appears that the Superintendent of Police, the respondent No. 5 wrote a letter to the Inspector General of Police stating that although the order of dismissal from service has been quashed, no punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner for the charges levelled against him. The Inspector General of Police passed the impugned order dated 05.09.2005 recalling order dated 18.06.2005 and consequently dismissed the appeal Memorial preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 denying that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the law and without observing the principles of natural justice. After receiving the report from the inquiry officer the petitioner was given an opportunity to give his last explanation to which the petitioner submitted his explanation which was found unsatisfactory and thereafter, the impugned order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner.