YOGENDRA TIWARI, SON OF LATE MANINATH TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HOME, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/direction for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 16.09.2010 and the order/letter dated 23.09.2010, whereby the respondents intimated that the petitioners were dismissed from service and further for direction upon the respondents to re-instate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that, the petitioner No. 1 was posted as Uchcha Kachhapal-cum-Incharge Superintendent and petitioner No. 2 was Kacchapal at Divisional Jail Godda in the year 2006. It has been averred in the writ application that one under trial prisoner Karunakar Choudhary purportedly made complaint dated 26.2.06 allegedly stating therein that at about 11.15 PM on 26.2.06 petitioners along with 15 to 20 unknown persons came near the window and started dancing. It has been submitted that the alleged Jamadar threatened him for dire consequences, if any complaint is made by him regarding supply of food. It has been stated that the respondent Jail authorities issued show cause notice vide memo No. 143 and 144 dated 2.3.01 as to why departmental proceeding should not be initiated against the petitioners for violation of provision of jail manual. It has been further stated that both the petitioners filed their reply separately on 3.3.06 denying the charges. It has been further averred that on 26.2.06, petitioner No. 1 was on the round of jail, heard the sound of music and saw that musician were coming with whom Kachhapal Arbind Singh was also accompanied and on being asked Arbind Singh told that Kacchapal Bhanu Prasad Madav allow the musician to come inside, details of which mentioned in reply dated 3.3.06 and similarly the petitioner No. 2 also denied the charges and filed his reply as contained in reply dated 3.3.06, It has been further averred that the Chief Judicial Magistrate on receipt of complaint dated 27.2.06 about the occurrence dated 26.2.06, conducted an enquiry in which purportedly found that petitioners were responsible for entering Munna Tiwari, Chiku Choudhary Ansari and 15 to 20 persons inducing some musician but during enquiry thirteen persons have been examined and there are vital contradictions between the statement of these persons which have not supported the version of the informant. It has been further averred that subsequently an F.I.R. was also lodged by the authority on the basis of application dated 27.02.06 about the occurrence dated 26.2.06 made by Karunakar Choudhary under trial prisoner. It has been further stated that petitioners were suspended and departmental proceeding was initiated against them vide letter dated 11.4.2006. It has been further stated that the respondent served memo of charge upon the petitioner No. 1 to the following effect:-

(3.) Heard Mr. (Dr.) S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned J.C. to A.A.G. for the respondent-State.