ASLAM Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.2.2011, passed by the disciplinary authority, whereby he has been terminated from service. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the orders dated 17.10.2011 and 30.4.2012, whereby the order of termination has been upheld by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority. The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Police Constable after following due procedures of selection and posted at Baliapur P.S. in the district of Dhanbad in the year 2010. He was deputed on duty in "Shrawani Mela" at Deoghar in the year 2010 for which he was relieved on 22.7.2010 from Dhanbad. But he was suspended on 23.8.2010 on the allegation of demanding illegal gratification. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the charge -sheet was submitted alleging therein that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification from the driver of the truck bearing Registration No. JH02J 5160, which was seized by the patrolling police party. On the said allegation, a criminal case being Barwada P.S. Case No. 320/2010 had also been instituted against the petitioner under Sections 419/420 IPC. The petitioner had appeared before the enquiry officer. But the enquiry officer, without any cogent evidence and without providing an opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses, found the charge proved against the petitioner. The said finding of the enquiry officer has been accepted by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed appeal as also revision, but the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority has also not considered the facts, which had been brought to their notice and in mechanical manner they have upheld the decision taken by the disciplinary authority.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not been provided an opportunity of defending himself, which is violation of the principle of natural justice, as such the impugned order of dismissal is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry officer merely on the basis of the evidence of one witness has come to the opinion with respect to proving of the charge against the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has submitted by filing counter affidavit that the petitioner had committed gross misconduct by demanding illegal gratification by impersonating himself as the bodyguard of the Superintendent of Police, Dhanabd. On the said allegation, departmental as well as judicial proceeding has been initiated. The petitioner has been provided an opportunity of hearing and after considering the deposition of the witnesses, the enquiry officer has found the charge proved against the petitioner. The report of the enquiry officer was also accepted by the disciplinary authority and he has passed a reasoned order dismissing the petitioner from service. Considering the gravity of the allegation, the authorities have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not fit to serve in the Police Force, as such the decision has been taken to separate him from the service of the Police Force.