ABDUL SHAKUR, SON OF LATE UMARZADA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE : PIRO, PO. : PIRO, P.S. : PIRO, DIST : BHOJPUR, BIHAR, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT ISLAMPUR, P.O. : MAKDUMPUR, P.S. : BALIDIH, DIST : BOKARO, JHARKHAND Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of an appropriate Writ/direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.09.2009, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa and the order dated 08.02.2010, passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range, Daltonganj, whereby the respondents-authorities have inflicted punishment of 3 black marks and forfeiting the increment of six months and also forfeiting the salary of 44 days and for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner for 44 days and for a further direction upon the respondents to pay the benefits of MACP.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that, the petitioner was appointed on 01.10.1971 as Constable in Bihar and subsequently was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1983, on account of his good performance. It has been stated in the writ application that subsequently, the petitioner was promoted on the post of the Sub Inspector in the year 2008-09, on account of his good performance. It has been averred that the petitioner retired from the services on 01.06.2011. It has been submitted that prior to the festival of Eid, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, HQ granted 10 days Civil Procedure Code Leave to the petitioner. It has been further stated that before leaving for vacation, the petitioner applied for 70 days E.L. before S.P. Garhwa on account of marriage of his son namely Musharraf Ali to be held on 19.10.2008 and also on account of treatment of his daughter namely Shahina Khatoon who is a Polio Patient and her treatment is going on in CMC, Vellor where she had to be operated on 31.10.2008. In order to corroborate the statements, the petitioner also annexed the Wedding Card of the marriage of his son along with the application for leave before S.P. Garhwa. It has been further averred that on application of the petitioner Munshi of S.P. Office Police No. 433 Vinay Kumar Singh has mentioned Earned Leave for 166 days. It has been further stated in the writ application that when the petitioner returned to join his duty on 19.11.2008, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him and on 20.01.2009, the petitioner was served with a notice directing him to submit the explanation within 7 days of the said notice. It has been further averred in the writ application that on 20.01.2009, a Charge Sheet has been submitted to the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner was granted 10 days Leave from 25.09.2008 to 06.10.2008 but the petitioner returned on duty on 19.11.2008 which shows the negligent and undisciplined behaviour of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was asked to file show cause and petitioner filed the show cause within stipulated period which was not considered and a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. It has been further averred that the Enquiry Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Police Officer, Garhwa after perusing the reports, relevant documents and evidences, found the petitioner guilty of charges. It has been further submitted that agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also without paying any heed to the documents annexed by the petitioner giving explanation of the delay, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment i.e. inflicting punishment of 3 black marks and forfeiting the increment of six months and also forfeiting the salary of 44 days. It has been further submitted in the writ application that against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority did not consider the contention raised by the petitioner in the Appeal and passed the order dated 08.02.2010 affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. It has been further submitted in the writ application that against the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred a Memorial/Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority (Respondent No. 2) annexing all the relevant documents, denying and disputing the charges levelled against him but the same was also not considered and the Revisional Authority passed an order dated 07.04.2014 affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary as well as the Appellate Authority. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Heard Mr. (Dr.) S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned G.A. for the respondent-State.