BINAY KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.05.2009 passed by the respondent no.3 pertaining to infliction of punishment of award of black mark for the alleged misconduct and the order by the appellate authority dated 15.02.2010.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, that while the petitioner was continuing as officer In-charge of Amlabad Outpost, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 23.12.2008 for the alleged misconduct for not issuing release order of transfer to one Vishawanth Singh. Similarly, other three police officers In-charge including the petitioner were charge-sheeted for the same misconduct for not relieving the police personnel within 24 hours. It has also averred in the writ application that three police officers In-charge namely Ramlal Ram, Chunmun Singh and the petitioner were charge-sheeted for the same misconduct. In pursuance to the aforesaid charge, inquiry officer was appointed and the inquiry officer submitted the report. On the basis of the inquiry report, the petitioner was found guilty partially and the disciplinary authority on the basis of the inquiry report has imposed punishment dated 31.05.2009 the infliction of punishment of award of black mark. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. respondent no. 2 and the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 15.02.2010 in a very cryptic and non-reasoned manner.

(3.) Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the proceeding, no enquiry report supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority while analysing the inquiry report differed with the findings of the inquiry officer and without assigning reasons for his difference and without giving petitioner any opportunity of hearing has imposed a major punishment of black mark which has grossly vitiated disciplinary proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated employees like Chunmun Singh who was proceeded on the self same charges has been inflicted with the minor punishment of censure so the petitioner is entitled to be extended with the doctrine of parity of punishment so far as the impugned order of punishment is concerned.