SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police, IRB -2, Chaibasa, Camp Musabani (respondent no.4) and the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi (respondent no.3) whereby service of the petitioner has been dismissed under Rule 668(A) and 673(C) of the Police Manual and for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.

(2.) Sans details, the brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that petitioner was appointed as Constable on 21.06.2013 in IRB -2, Chaibasa, Camp Musabani and thereafter, the petitioner performed his duties to the best of his ability and to the utmost satisfaction of the respondent authorities. On 06.03.2014 the petitioner received show cause from the Commandant as to why his services shall not be dismissed and the petitioner submitted his show cause reply denying the allegations levelled against him. To the utter surprise and dismay, the petitioner was dismissed from services following the Rule 668(A) and 673(C) of the Police Manual. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner submitted appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi along with copy of the judgment in the criminal case passed by the District Judge. The appellate authority vide order dated 16.09.2014 rejected the appeal of the petitioner being not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 09.05.2014 and 16.09.2014, left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Heard Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. Nitika Agrawal, J.C. to A.G., appearing for the respondents.