TERRES EKKA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER joined as Constable on 10.11.1984 at Chaibasa. While being posted at Bahragora, he proceeded to the Police Line for collecting his salary on 4.9.1996. It is alleged that alter collecting the salary he went to his family to hand over the salary to his wife and he suddenly suffered from jaundice which prevented him from joining his duty. He, however, joined his duty on 5.10.1996. Departmental proceeding was initiated against him and vide order No. 1035 dated 28.3.2000 and he was asked to show -cause within 15 days, why he should not be discharged from service. Petitioner submitted his reply stating his illness as the reason for absence from duty. Petitioner was served with the notice vide Memo No. 318. dated 12.5.2000 informing him that departmental proceedings have been initiated against him and his first explanation is insufficient. He was asked to submit his explanation before 25.5.2000, failing which it shall be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter and exparte decision will be taken. This has been followed by order dated 22.5.2000 whereby petitioner was discharged from service. Petitioner preferred an appeal against this order before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranehi. It is stated, that his appeal is still pending and has not been decided though reminders have been given. Petitioner, accordingly, seeks quashment of his termination order dated 22.5.2000 and consequential relief.

(2.) IN the counter -affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, it is stated that petitioner remained absent for 123 days w.e.f. 4.6.1996 to 5.10.1996. He was placed under suspension on 4.2.1997 and departmental proceeding was held against him under No. 88/97. Subsequently vide Memo No. 726, dated 27.2.1997 explanation was sought for from him but he did not put forward any. Subsequently, another memo was served upon the petitioner seeking his explanation, however, petitioner submitted his explanation whereby he has staled that he was suddenly taken ill and could not join the duty. It is staled that petitioner did not inform the department about his illness and, accordingly, final order was issued at the home address of the petitioner. Petitioner was, however, dismissed earlier vide order dated 22.5.2000.

(3.) UNDER the orders of the Court, respondents were directed to produce the record. From perusal of the record, it appears that memo of charge dated 22.2.1997 was sent to the petitioner asking him to reply within one week. From the record, it is evident that petitioner was neither associated with the inquiry nor he was provided an opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses or to produce his own witnesses. Statements of Lalan Mishra and B. Purti were recorded. Petitioner was however served show -cause notice against dismissal. It is interesting to note that vide Memo dated 12.5.2000 petitioner was asked to submit his explanation before 25.5.2000 whereas discharge order came to be passed on 22.5.2000 even before expiry of period allowed for submission of explanation i.e. up to 25.5.2000. This itself is sufficient to infer the pre - determined mind of the disciplinary authority and amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice. There is also nothing on record that petitioner was furnished with the inquiry report. However, it appears that appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed on 15.3.2003. Even the order passed by the appellate authority is silent about the association of the petitioner with inquiry. From the facts on record, it is evident that petitioner has been dismissed from service without oh serving the principles of natural justice. Neither he was associated with the inquiry nor provided an opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses or to lead his own evidence. Even inquiry report was not served upon him. Order passed by the appellate authority has also not been communicated. There is also nothing on record as to the service of rejection order passed by appellate authority upon the petitioner, I am of the considered view that dismissal of the petitioner is illegal and unwarranted. The order of discharge dated 22.5.2000 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed lo reinstate the petitioner forthwith with consequential benefits except the salary for the period he remained out of service. However, petitioners salary shall be fixed after giving notional benefit of increments and he will be paid emoluments from the date of Joining. Respondents are however at liberty to initiate action against the petitioner in accordance with Rules, if so advised.