RAJENDRA PAL, POLICE NO. 188, SON OF LATE RAM DAYAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GOWALAPARA, NEAR CHAURASIA NIWAS, P.S. RIT, ADITYAPUR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.08.2010 as contained in Memo No.4179 vide Annexure-4 passed by the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa (respondent no.4) pertaining to dismissal from the services and for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.05.2012 vide Annexure-5, passed by the respondent no.3, the appellate authority, who confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority and the petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Sans details, facts as delineated and disclosed in the writ application is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Bihar Police in the year 1986 and subsequently transferred to Chaibasa in the year 1997 where he worked under the office of Sergeant Major. While continuing in service, an F.I.R. being Sadar (Chaibasa) P.S. Case No.31 of 2001, dated 24.05.2001 was lodged against several persons for committing illegality committed in appointment of Constables in pursuance of advertisement No.1/98 in Chaibasa. It has been alleged in the said F.I.R. that appointment of constables were made on the basis of false and fake certificates with overwriting on several certificates., The petitioner though not named in the F.I.R., was alleged to have prepared and manufactured the fake certificates by doing overwriting for appointment of the Constables. Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Departmental Proceeding No.21/07 and the charges were framed against him alleging that the petitioner made overwriting in the muster chart, candidates register, date of birth in applications, educational qualifications, home-guard columns etc. In pursuance to the charges, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply before the disciplinary authority denying the allegations levelled against him. In reply to the charges, the petitioner submitted that the allegation of overwriting made on certificates and registers can be proved by examination by handwriting expert and by forensic examination. Being dis-satisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority conducted an enquiry and in the said enquiry, witnesses were examined. In the enquiry, the enquiry officer found all the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply of second show cause notice. Having dis-satisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from the services on the basis of enquiry report vide order dated 30.08.2010, vide Annexure-4, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.5.2012, vide Annexure-5. Being aggrieved with the impugned order of dismissal from the services which has been confirmed by the appellate authority, the petitioner has no alternative but to move this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, submitted that the enquiry report which has been submitted by the enquiry officer is a cryptic one and the disciplinary authority, relying on the same, has passed the impugned order of punishment. He further submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner of overwriting made on certificates and registers could have been proved by the handwriting expert and in absence of any proof to that effect, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order which cannot be construed to be legitimate and the same appears to be grossly disproportionate.