SUGAIR AHMED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 2612 passed by the Respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder, punishment of reduction of time scale in pay to the minimum basic pay of Rs. 3,050/ - for a period of two years has been inflicted upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 13.5.2006 as contained in Memo No. 691 by which the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority has been upheld. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on 20.9.1979 in the District of Nalanda Police Force. While the petitioner was posted at Hansdiah Police Station, a written complaint was made against the petitioner and another person by the Officer In -charge of Hansdiah Police Station with respect to illegal collection of money from the truck owners. Pursuant to the said complaint, the petitioner was put under suspension and charge -sheet dated 2.12.2004 was submitted to him and he was directed to file a show cause failing which departmental proceeding would be initiated against the petitioner. Show cause was submitted by the petitioner but on being dissatisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner another charge -sheet was issued by the respondent No. 3 wherein the petitioner was intimated that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him. In course of the departmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved and, thereafter, respondent No. 4 being the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment against the petitioner as contained in Memo No. 261 dated 16.12.2005 by inflicting the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay to that of minimum basic pay of Rs. 3,050/ - for a period of two years. The appeal which was preferred by the petitioner against the order of the disciplinary authority was rejected by the respondent No. 3 being the appellate authority vide order as contained in Memo No. 691 dated 13.5.2006. A memorial was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the appellate authority but the petitioner was intimated that the same is not maintainable. Having exhausted all his remedies under law the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ application challenging the order of punishment and the subsequent dismissal of appeal.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned J.C. to A.A.G.

(3.) MR . Prabhat Singh, learned J.C. to A.A.G., on the other hand, has submitted that in the disciplinary proceeding the necessary procedures have duly been followed. It has further been submitted that there is very little scope for judicial review in a departmental proceeding. Learned J.C. to A.A.G. further submits that non -supply of the enquiry report has not prejudiced the petitioner as no grounds have been submitted by the petitioner either before the disciplinary authority or" before this Court as to how prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.