GAUR SING MUNDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of discharge from service passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police (J.A.P.) VIth, Jamshedpur in Departmental Proceeding No. 7 of 2000 contained in memo no. 261 dated 11.7.2003. He has also challenged the appellate order rejecting his appeal bearing memo no. 465 dated 18.5.2004.

(2.) THE petitioner was a constable under the erstwhile, respondent -Government of Bihar and was proceeded against on the allegation of one Mukut Mani Devi that she was married to the petitioner and during subsistence of his marriage, the petitioner was going to solemnize the second marriage with one Kumari Jayanti on 27.3.1999. She also had alleged that the family members of the petitioner were demanding dowry in the shape of Motorcycle and T.V. The said allegations were inquired into and the preliminary inquiry conducted by the respondents, prima facie established the allegations. On the basis of the report of one P.P. Nag, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bihar Military Police, 11, Jamshedpur, which is at Annexure A to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 5 dated 6.11.2006, the charges were submitted to the petitioner through letter dated 6.1.2000 requiring him to give explanation on the allegations that during the subsistence of his first marriage with Mukut Mani Devi, he had chosen to enter into second marriage with one Kumari Jayanti without seeking permission. It was further alleged that the petitioner had been implicated in a criminal case being Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 20 of 1999 registered under Section 498A/34 I.P.C. read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at the behest of his first wife, Mukut Mani Devi.

(3.) IN the background of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Inquiry Officer, after considering the deposition of the witnesses including the complainant, Mukut Mani Devi, A.S.I., Rajpal Ram and the materials exhibits adduced during the course of inquiry proceeding, found the allegations against the petitioner established. He also observed that despite repeated time being granted to submit his final written statement of defence, the petitioner had not furnished his written statement of defence and simply sought adjournment in the departmental proceeding. Therefore, the allegations of misconduct were found to be established against the petitioner.