SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ application has been filed praying, inter alia, for quashing of the appellate order dated passed by respondent no. 3 dated 26.08.2003 and the order passed by the disciplinary authority -respondent no. 4 dated 25.07.2002 pertaining to dismissal of the petitioner from services.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner initially joined on the post of constable in Bihar Police in the year 1988 and on transfer in the year 1998, the petitioner joined the Rail police at Jamshedpur. While continuing as such on 15.05.1999, the petitioner requested respondent no. 4 to hold an inquiry and take appropriate steps due to misbehavior with his brother -in -law by ASI -Kunni Sah. The said complaint was duly received in the office of respondent no. 4, who directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to take necessary action and to submit a report. But, without taking any step upon the complaint petition of the petitioner, he was served with a charge -sheet alleging that he along with constable Md. Umar Khan were abusing unnecessarily and when ASI Kunni Sah was trying to pacify the matter, they misbehaved with Kunni Sah and threatened him. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension and departmental enquiry was initiated, which culminated in his dismissal from services. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 26.08.2003 affirming the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in a very perfunctory manner as the petitioner was not served with the copy of enquiry report and non -supply of enquiry report vitiates the entire proceeding from its initiation till its culmination. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on perusal of the enquiry report, it is clear that witnesses have not supported the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that similar allegation was made against Md. Umar Khan and in the departmental proceeding he was also imposed the punishment of dismissal from services by the disciplinary authority. But, in the appeal preferred by the co -delinquent, Md. Umar Khan, the punishment of dismissal from services was set aside and minor punishment of withholding of one increment was imposed and the case of the petitioner lies on a similar footing but he has been discriminated by the respondents -authorities.