VED PRAKASH PATWA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing the District Force Order No. 579 of 2014, dated 21.04.2014, as contained in Memo No. 194 dated 07.04.2014, passed by the Respondent No. 2 (appellate authority) confirming the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the Respondent No. 3, pertaining to dismissal from services of Police Constable and has further prayed for payment of arrears of salary and all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that in pursuance to Advertisement No. 1 of 2010, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Garhwa District. In the application form, the petitioner made a declaration that no criminal case is pending against him in any court or in any police station. The said application containing the declaration was verified from the concerned Police Station and in course of verification, it came to light that there is a criminal case being Garhwa P.S. Case No. 90 of 2001, dated 17.05.2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 327 of 2001 is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was served with memo of charges containing the allegations as per Rule 673 'Ka' of the Police Manual. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect from services and on the basis of the alleged charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the memo of charge before the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa on 17.07.2013, stating therein, that he has not suppressed the fact that any criminal case is pending in any court of law against him rather, he left the column of declaration blank only for the reason that though one criminal case was pending in the court but neither any evidence was produced against him nor he was convicted in any criminal case. Later on he was acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 11.01.2012, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa. In the explanation, he has also submitted that Rule 673 (ga) of the Police Manual is not applicable in his case. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner has been found guilty in the departmental proceeding for suppressing the material fact, on the basis of evidences of prosecution witnesses and the defence version brought in the said departmental proceeding and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer, the petitioner has been dismissed from the service vide District Force Order dated 05.12.2013.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner having no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.