NAESH KUMAR SAHAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order contained in D.O. No. 957/2005, dated 19th March, 2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, West Champaran (Bihar), whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been inflicted punishment for forfeiting increment for six months, equivalent to one black mark.

(2.) AS the matter can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant fact. While the petitioner was posted as Sub -Inspector of Police at Betia was suspended vide Order No. 363/2004, dated 13th March, 2004. A departmental proceeding was initiated by the Superintendent of Police, West Champaran at Betia vide departmental proceeding No. 43 of 2004 (Betia District) vide Memo No. 1106, dated 15th June, 2004. It was alleged that the petitioner was absent from duty on unauthorised leave. The petitioner filed show Cause reply regarding charges levelled against him on 31th August, 2004 specifically stating therein that he has been allowed leave of the period of absence by the higher authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police. West Champaran. The enquiry officer after giving opportunity to the parties and after taking into consideration the relevant documents available on record submitted his report on 15th March, 2005 (vide Annexure 13), in which the petitioner was held 'not guilty ' for the charges levelled against him.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that though he is posted at Seraikella in the State of Jharkhand and was held 'not guilty ' by the enquiry officer, the Superintendent of Police, West Champaran at Betia (Bihar), who had no jurisdiction, without any notice to the petitioner merely differing with the finding of the enquiry officer, issued the impugned order of punishment.