AHMAR RASHEED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable (Constable No. 218) in the Jharkhand Police in the year 2010. While being posted at Deoghar, the petitioner was put under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar vide memo No.1386 dtd. 27/5/2016, on the basis of information of the Officer-in-Charge, Town Police Station, that the Petitioner along with Tinku Kumar, Sumit Kumar Das and the Animal Smuggler, were giving information about the movement of Police and were providing protection to the vehicle of the animal traffickers in safely going out of Deoghar City and in lieu thereof they were charging Rs.1000.00 per vehicle. Subsequently, vide memo No.1746 dtd. 2/7/2016 (District Order No.2240/2016 dtd. 29/6/2016), the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar revoked the suspension of the petitioner. Memo of charge under memo No.2122 dtd. 16/8/2016 was issued to the petitioner, alleging therein as aforesaid. It was also mentioned that in enquiry of the Inspector-cum-Officer in Charge, it had come that the petitioner was also involved. Petitioner was asked to submit his show cause reply within a week. Petitioner on 27/10/2016, had submitted his reply, wherein he categorically denied each of the charges leveled against him and he also prayed to drop the charges and to close the proceeding against him. Thereafter a Departmental Proceeding No.25/16 was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, on 25/5/2017 had submitted the enquiry report, wherein he found the charges against the petitioner as proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide memo No.2793 dtd. 24/6/2017 communicated the final order vide D.O. No.1485/17 passed in the Departmental Proceeding No.25/16, whereby and whereunder punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka Region, Dumka. The Appellate Authority vide order No.566/19 communicated through Memo No.642 dtd. 6/3/2019 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Challenging the order of dismissal as also the appellate order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the departmental enquiry only three witnesses were examined, out of whom two witnesses were formal witnesses whereas the other witness was the Officer, who had given information vide memo No.1593/2016 dtd. 17/5/2016 to the Superintendent of Police about the petitioner and others. He argued that in the departmental proceeding, nothing had surfaced to substantiate the charge against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has heavily relied on Memo No.1593/2016 dtd. 17/5/2016 whereas neither the so called Md. Sheru nor any truck driver was examined to substantiate the allegations nor any evidence like CDR of the calls of the petitioner has been brought on record to substantiate that the petitioner had ever talked to Md. Sheru. Learned counsel argued that the charge itself is vague inasmuch nothing was mentioned in the charge nor anything has come in evidence as to on which date, at what time, from whom or from which vehicle the alleged money was taken. He argued that on the basis of such vague charge, merely relying on the complaint made by an Officer without being specific and when the charge itself was not proved, the punishment imposed on the petitioner of dismissal from service is absolutely bad and untenable in the eyes of law. He argued that even the Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that there was nothing on record nor there was any evidence to prove the charge against the petitioner in the Departmental Enquiry, as such the findings of the Enquiry Officer itself were bad and untenable and holding to the contrary and rejecting the appeal of the petitioner was equally bad and untenable.