UMESHWAR UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 21.6.2002 (Annexure 10) by which the disciplinary authority (Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur) discharged the petitioner from the post of police constable in pursuance of Departmental Proceeding No. 31 of 2002. The petitioner also prays for quashing the order dated 5.11.2002 (Annexure 1) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Deputy Inspector general of Police, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi) by which, in exercise of powers under the appellate jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also makes a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay his entire dues of salary from 20.1.2002 to 8.4.2002 (i.e. period of suspension) and from 21.6.2002 till date together with a consequential order that he should be posted at a suitable place on the post of a Constable.

(2.) THE short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that in the year 1980, the petitioner was appointed on the post of a Constable in the Bihar Police. In January 2002, while he was posted as a Constable in the Jamshedpur Civil Court, an accused namely Akhilesh Singh along with other accused persons were brought from jail custody for production in Court. On 18.1.2002 there was no posting of any Assistant Sub Inspector in the Jamshedpur Sadar Court save and except the petitioner who was the only Constable posted there along with one Laldeo Singh who was posted as a havildar in the Sadar Court and who was also incharge of the Court lockup.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3) did not take any step to arrest the absconding accused and on the day when the petitioner was released from jail, i.e. 21.1.2002, suspended the petitioner and Laldeo Singh vide suspension Order No. 162 of 2002 (Annexure 3) and also ordered the initiation of a departmental proceeding appointing the Sergeant Major 2 as the conducting officer who was also directed to frame charges against them. In compliance of the directions made, the conducting officer (respondent No. 4) framed draft charges on the next day, i.e., 21.2.2002 against the petitioner alleging, that due to his carelessness and dereliction of duty, Akhilesh Singh had been able to escape from custody. The petitioner was directed to submit explanation to the draft charges contained in Annexure -4. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 4.2.2002 expressing innocence and prayed that till pendency of the criminal case, the departmental proceeding should be kept in abeyance. In spite of the aforesaid prayer, the conducting officer continued with the departmental proceeding which was registered as departmental proceeding No. 31 of 2002.