LALDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of tlie cider dated 21.6.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 4) as contained in Annexure - 10 whereby the petitioner lias been awarded punishment of dismissal in a departmental proceeding and for quashing of the order dated 5.11.2002 passed by the D.I.G.. South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranch! dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as contained in Annexure -12 and also the order dated 17.6.2003 passed in revision application being No. J.S.R.D.O. No. 1328/ 2003 passed by the Director General of Poliee -cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi as contained in An -nexure -14 by which the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) THE short fact of the case is that the petitioner was a Hawaldar in Jharkhand Police and since the month of December 2001 he was posted as incharge of Court Hazat, Jamshedpur in East Singhbhum District. The petitioner 'scase is that one constable was posted under him for performance of duty of production of accused persons before different Courts from the Court Hazat. The Court Hazats are usually under the charge of Sub -inspector of police who act as a Court Officer. Sub -inspectors and the persons of other ranks are deployed keeping in view the number of Courts and persons to be kept in Hazat, At the relevant time except the petitioner -a Hawaldar -and one constable no body was deputed for production of the accused persons in different Courts. On 18.1.2002 also he was the Hazat in -charge with only constable namely.

(3.) THE respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which they have supported the said order as contained in Annexures -10, 12 and 14 saying the same as legal, sound and valid orders. It is stated that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the departmental proceeding and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. According to them the charge of dereliction of duty. disobedience and Irresponsible behaviours of the petitioner has been established and on that basis the order of punishment has been passed, which has been confirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities and there is no infirmity in the said orders warranting any interference by this Court.