AKHILESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is seeking quashing of the order of punishment of compulsory retirement dated 12.06.2001 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, respondent No. 3. The Appellate order dated 31.01.2004 passed by the Director General of Police -cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal No. 03/2001 is also being challenged whereunder the order of punishment has been affirmed. The original order of compulsory retirement is at Annexure -2 while covering letter of the Appellate Order is annexed as Annexure -2, but the Appellate Order in fact is Annexure -D to the counter affidavit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent -State has at the outset tried to clear the controversy about the identity of Sanjiv Kumar Mishra and submitted that he is the same person namely Sanjeet Kumar Mishra, who had informed the police and on whose Fardbeyan, the FIR in question was registered. It is further submitted that departmental enquiry has been conducted on the basis of charges that the petitioner being a member of police force had indulged in indiscipline, shown lack of sense of duty while resorting to fire without any reason and killing an innocent boy Manoj Beldar in the process whereby the image of police force has been lowered down. It is submitted that departmental enquiry has been conducted on the basis of the settled principles of evidences i.e. on preponderances of probabilities as is applicable in such proceeding. Reference has been made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma reported in : (2010) 6 SCC 555. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that acquittal of the petitioner is based upon benefit of doubt. Such an acquittal even otherwise would not come to the benefit of the petitioner as the dismissal order war, not passed on the basis of his conviction rather than on the findings of departmental enquiry wherein enough opportunity was given to the petitioner. Reference has been made to the enquiry report in which various communications, which were sent to the petitioner to participate during the course of enquiry, have been referred to. Respondents have relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao reported in : (2012) 1 SCC 442, para -11 thereof.