SAMARJEET PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, whereby the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad passed the order of dismissal and for quashing the order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand affirming the order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Range, Bokaro and also for issuance of writ/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as emanated from the averments of the writ application in short, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Dhanbad and joined his duty on 24.04.2005 and continued till 2009. The petitioner was transferred to Ranchi on deputation in S.T.F. where he continued till December, 2010. During his posting in the district of Dhanbad, allegation was levelled against the petitioner for absence of duty from 22.07.2008 to 30.07.2008 and charges were framed thereafter, the petitioner was proceeded departmentally and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. On the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad issued a show cause notice on the proposed order of punishment of dismissal from the services. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. Without considering the show cause reply in proper prospective, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal vide order dated 26.07.2010 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. Against the order of Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 07.09.2010 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred revision before the Revisional Authority and Revisional Authority i.e. Director General of Police, Jharkhand rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order of the Appellate Authority by order dated 04.03.2011, vide Annexure-8 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Per-Contra a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counteraffidavit, it has been inter alia submitted that the departmental proceeding bearing Dhanbad District Departmental Proceeding no.45 of 2008 was initiated against the petitioner and the charges against the petitioner was that while posted at Hariharpur Police Station with reserve guard of STF, without giving any information absconded from duty and subsequently appeared on 30.07.2008. The petitioner was ordered to give his joining at Police Line, Dhanbad. Further, a news item was published in local daily Hindustan in which snatching of Rs.17,000/- from a passenger on Railway station, also came to light. The petitioner was suspended and departmental proceeding was initiated. The departmental proceeding was conducted by the Inspector of Jorapokhar, who after conducting the enquiry found him guilty of the charges and also found him indulging in indisciplined conduct etc., copy of the departmental proceeding dated 10.06.2010 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that the conducting officer found during the course of enquiry that the petitioner on 28.07.2008 snatched Rs.17,000/- from a passenger namely Md. Mumtiaz and this matter was published in newspaper (Hindustan) on 29.07.2008. The conducting officer has also found during the course of enquiry that the petitioner absconded from duty for 7 days without any information. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad after minutely scrutinizing the record, agreed by the conducting officer and after considering the material available on record including the explanation given by the petitioner found guilty of the charges, as evident from Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that the Superintendent of Police also asked for an explanation from the petitioner within 7 days which further transpires that the petitioner submitted his explanation in defence before the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad and the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad after scrutinizing the entire records passed final order, dismissing the petitioner from services as per Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. The Appellate Authority passed a reasoned order dismissing the appeal vide Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit and the Revisional Authority also dismissed the memorial by order dated 14.03.2011, vide Annexure-E to the counteraffidavit. Petitioner was found to be indulging in grave misconduct which has tarnished the reputation of Police.