SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30th October, 2015 passed in W.P (S) No.3649/2011 whereby writ application filed by the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as petitioner) stands dismissed, he has preferred the instant appeal which is now taken up for its final consideration.

(2.) The petitioner who was an informer to the police was appointed in the year 1997 on the post of Constable. After bifurcation of the State, the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand Cadre and posted in the office of C.I.D, Ranchi, Jharkhand. It so happened that, after about five years, on 10th December, 2002, Memo No.3516 was issued to the petitioner on the ground that his appointment was illegal as, he was appointed without advertisement and physical measurement. A departmental proceeding was initiated in which enquiry report was submitted and the petitioner was directed to file his second show cause as to why his service be not terminated. Finally, the petitioner was dismissed from service, vide order dated 5th April, 2003. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner moved writ court in W.P (S) No.4308/2003, which was disposed of on 30th August, 2003 granting liberty to file representation before the Director-General of Police, Ranchi. Against the order dated 30th August, 2003 passed in W.P (S) No.4308/2003, the petitioner filed L.P.A No.673/2003, which was dismissed by order dated 20th May, 2010 with liberty to pursue his representation. The fresh representation filed by the petitioner on 9th June, 2010 before the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand was rejected, vide Memo no.127 dated 11th April, 2011. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order once again moved the writ court through the medium of W.P (S) No.3649/2011, which now stands dismissed, vide the impugned judgment dated 30.10.2015.

(3.) Dr.S.N.Pathak, learned Senior Counsel referring to certain orders passed by the writ court and the Division Bench in different L.P.As contends that the case of the petitioner is at par with other constables who were appointed in the same manner and that the orders dispensing with their services have been quashed by the writ court and in some of the cases, those orders were affirmed by the Division Bench. He also relied upon a judgment of learned Single Judge in CWJC No.3461/2004 (Patna High Court) in the case of Kamal Chandra Sah v. The State of Bihar and Ors. in which it has been held that State can always make an exception to Rule 661 B of the Police Manual in deserving cases. In short, Dr.Pathak contends that the case of the petitioner was also a most deserving case and thus, an exception and therefore, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner deserves to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the alternative the case of the petitioner can be remitted to the writ court for a fresh consideration after considering the judgments on which he has now relied upon.