BRAJ KISHOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by the respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure -4 whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 20.5.2004 and for quashing the appellate order dated 21.9.2004 passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexure -6 whereby the appellate authority has rejected the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner has further prayed for an order of his reinstatement will all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a constable in B.M.P. -16 at Nausa Khagaul in the year 1986. In the year 1996 he was transferred to B.M.P. -17 in Palamau where he remained till 2002. The said B.M.P. -17 after coming out the State of Jharkhand became Jharkhand Armed Police -7. In the year 2003 the petitioner had taken four days' leave from 24.10.2003 to 28.10.2003. He was to report on duty on 29.10.2003. But in the mean time, his eldest aunt (Badi Maa) died. The petitioner thus sent an application for extension of his leave by registered post to the respondent No. 4. In sequence thereafter the petitioner's wife was diagnosed as a patient of suspected cancer. The petitioner had to rush to the doctors at Patna and had to go to several laboratories and nursing homes for various types of tests and investigation concerning his wife's ailment. It took several days and the petitioner under that circumstance, could report on his duty on 6.12.2003. In the mean time, the respondent No. 4 by order dated 11.11.2003 put the petitioner under suspension with effect from 3.11.2003 for remaining absent unauthorisedly. The petitioner was then proceeded against departmentally on the charge of misconduct alleging his absence as unauthorized. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the statement of solitary witness Shayam Kishore Singh concluded his enquiry and found that the petitioner had overstayed the leave without any order by the competent authority. The petitioner was thus found guilty of misconduct. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Commandant of Jharkhand Armed Police -7, Hazaribagh held the petitioner guilty and by his order dated 21.4.2004 (Annexure -4) an explanation was asked from him as to why an order of punishment of compulsory retirement be not passed. The petitioner submitted his explanation with necessary detail, but the Commandant being not satisfied with the explanation passed the order of punishment of his compulsory retirement and forfeited the salary of the period of his absence treating the period as half earned leave by his order dated 22.5.2004. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Armed Police, Ranchi, who by Memo No. 1105 dated 22.9.2004 rejected the appeal petition holding that there is no point in the appeal petition which can be considered. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of the respondents are wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjust and that he has been awarded unconscionably harsh and disproportionate punishment even for overstaying the leave, under the compelling circumstance beyond the control of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the overstayal of 38 days would have been adjusted against his unutilized leave. It has been stated that the respondents have passed the impugned orders mechanically and arbitrarily giving the past instances without considering the petitioner's explanation supported by the medical documents and the death certificate of his Badi Maa and he has been illegally removed from the services by way of compulsory retirement prior to about 18 years of his date of superannuation causing untold hardships to the petitioner, his dependants and the family members.

(3.) THE petitioner in his rejoinder refuted the grounds taken by the respondents and has stated that on earlier occasions he was given minor punishment for the charge of Overstaying the leave. It has been stated that the circumstances explained by the petitioner have not been considered under which the petitioner was prevented from reporting on his duty and the provisions of Rules 843 and 826 of the Bihar Police Manual have also not been observed. Earlier for the similar charge of unauthorized absence for the period of 195 days the petitioner was awarded punishment of one black mark only and this time for the alleged unauthorized absence of only 38 days the petitioner has been awarded punishment of compulsory retirement before about 18 years of his date of superannuation depriving the petitioner of his valuable legal rights.