PURUSHOTTAM PANDEY, SON OF SRI RAJESHWAR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE : SEMRI (KHASIA PATTI), P.O. & P.S. : SEMRI, DIST : BUXER (BIHAR) Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.03.2008, passed by the disciplinary authority (Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa), pertaining to removal from services and for issuance of writ of mandamus for reinstatement of petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.

(2.) The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Police Constable on 05.03.1987. While continuing, as such, basing on the complaint of one Geeta Devi, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 15.10.2005 on the alleged charges of having contracted with second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage without permission of the Department. The second charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner was not taking care of the respondent No. 5 and her son. In pursuance to the charge, the enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer after perusing the documents and examining the evidences, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are true but categorically stated in the enquiry report that both the marriages were solemnized before the petitioner's entry into service. It is further averred in the writ application that the case filed by the Respondent No. 5 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxer, numbered as 25 (M) of 1993 against the petitioner under Sec. 125 of Crimial P.C. was dismissed by the learned court. The disciplinary authority on perusal of the findings of the enquiry officer, passed an order of removal of the petitioner from services on 28.03.2008 vide Annexure-5 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3, i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan Range, Chaibasa. During pendency of the writ application, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 21.08.2012, thereby confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment, the petitioner having no other alternative, speedy and efficacious remedy, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 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 Ms. Nikita Agrawal, learned J.C. to A.G. for the respondent-State.