SHAMBHU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has been dismissed from service vide order dated 3rd March, 2001, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gumla, accepting the report of the enquiring officer, whereby, charge of misconduct against the petitioner was held to be proved. An appeal preferred against the order of dismissal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ranchi, also resulted in dismissal vide order dated 23rd June, 2003. A further appeal in the shape of memorial before the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, also came to be dismissed vide order dated 7th July, 2004.

(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the enquiry proceedings, the order passed by the disciplinary authority, dismissing the petitioner from service, and the orders passed by the appellate authorities, referred to hereinabove, on variety of grounds. The main thrust of the argument is that the departmental proceedings held against the petitioner were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not provided any opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses and to lead evidence. It is further contended that the enquiry officer has relied upon the hearsay evidence and, thus, the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, warranting interference of this Court. Apart from the above, it has been contended that the appellate authorities have not dealt with the points, raised by the petitioner in the memos of appeal. Though no specific ground has been urged in the writ application regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority In passing the impugned order, however, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of passing of the order of dismissal on 3rd March, 2001, the petitioner was posted at Patna within the State of Bihar, having been transferred to Patna in April, 1999.

(3.) THE Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur reported in : (1972)ILLJ1SC held as follows: