ARUN KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 07.11.2006 (Annexure -6) and the order dated 22.08.2006 (Annexure -5) passed by the respondents pertaining to the punishment of reversion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for two years and for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrear and difference of salary.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that while the petitioner was posted as Inspector of Police in the district of Simdega in the year 2005, charges were levelled against him for alleged misconduct and dereliction of duty vide letter dated 13.12.2005, Annexure -1 to the writ application. In pursuance to the said charges, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply. A departmental proceeding no.9/05 was initiated against him and the matter was inquired into by the inquiry officer, who submitted his report to the disciplinary authority as evident from Annexure -4 to the writ application. The disciplinary authority i.e. respondent no.4 held the petitioner guilty of the charges and passed the order of reversion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for two years vide order dated 22.08.2006, Annexure -5 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no.3, which was not entertained. Again, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Ranchi dated 17.11.2006 which was stated to be pending.

(3.) Dr. S. N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of punishment of reversion has been passed by the disciplinary authority basing on the report of the inquiry officer notwithstanding the facts that out of five charges, charge nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 have not been proved and only charge no.4 has been proved. But, the disciplinary authority without giving any cogent reasons has passed the order differing with the findings of the inquiry officer. The petitioner has not been given opportunity to file his reply on the question of disagreement between by the disciplinary authority and the report of the inquiry officer. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that before giving punishment of reversion, no second show cause notice has been issued, which has vitiated the disciplinary proceeding. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the disciplinary authority have acted mala fide in imposing the order of punishment. During pendency of the writ application, the order of the appellate authority dated 02.05.2009 has been passed, which has been brought on record by I.A No.1251 of 2016. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of punishment being affirmed by the appellate authority is harsh, excessive and not commensurate with the gravity of charges. Therefore, the action of the respondents is in infraction of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.