JAY RAM PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 06.05.2014 whereby respondent no. 2 declined to entertain the Memorial; appellate order dated 19.08.2013 whereby respondent no. 3 dismissed the appeal; and order of punishment dated 31.08.2011 whereby respondent no. 4 imposed punishment of reversion of the petitioner to the basic scale of pay.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that vide memo dated 26.04.2007, the petitioner was served with a charge -sheet alleging, inter alia, that while he was posted as Officer -in -Charge of Birsa Nagar Police Station, a complaint was lodged by one S. Davidson, which was notified by Dy.S.P (Town) alleging that the petitioner demanded a Television set for the work alleged therein. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the effect that the allegations contained in the memo of charge are false and he never demanded any Television. Thereafter, the Dy.S.P. (Law & Order), Jamshedpur was appointed Enquiry Officer, who upon examining the witnesses held the preliminary enquiry and found the petitioner responsible for the alleged charges. Basing on this enquiry report, the disciplinary authority proposed to impose the punishment by reverting the petitioner to basic scale of pay vide memo dated 31.08.2011. However, subsequently vide memo dated 01.10.2010, the respondent no. 3 approved the proposal made by respondent no. 4 by reducing the petitioner to his basic scale of pay for a period of three years. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was also dismissed vide memo dated 19.08.2013. Subsequently, on 05.09.2013 the petitioner preferred memorial and by letter dated 06.05.2014, the Inspector General of Police (Training) communicated that the memorial of the petitioner did not merit any consideration and the same was found to be not maintainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer has not examined the complainant and only the Dy.S.P. and Steno (A.S.I) were examined and the petitioner was not provided any liberty to cross -examine them. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to adduce evidence, either oral or documentary and mainly on the basis of ex -parte evidence of two witnesses, the enquiry officer held the petitioner responsible for the alleged charges.