ARVIND KUMAR SINGH, S/O SRI TARKESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SABADALPUR, P.S. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner, has inter alia, prayed for quashing of the punishment order of dismissal dated 13.04.2000 passed by Superintendent of Rail Police, Jamshedpur in departmental proceeding No. 37/1998 on the basis of Criminal Case, Tatanagar GRPS Case No. 32/97, under Sections 307/302/379 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act and also prayed for quashing order of Appellate Authority-D.I.G of Rail Police, Jharkhand dated 12.10.2009 and further prayed for reinstatement of the petitioner in services with continuity in service and back wages and also consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief facts, as emanated from the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner while continuing as constable at Tatanagar G.R.P.S on 20.03.1997, it is alleged that the petitioner took out rifle and cartridge from the magazine and opened fire on the then Officer-in-Charge of Tatanagar G.R.P.S, as a result of which he died, as it is alleged that the Officer-in-Charge did not allow him to proceed on leave granted earlier. For this a criminal case was instituted against him vide Tatanagar G.R.P.S Case No. 32/97 under Sections 302/307/379 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It has been submitted that while the petitioner was in the jail custody, basing on the same and similar charge, a departmental proceeding no. 37/98 was initiated, in which, the allegation levelled against the petitioner was found proved by the enquiry officer. Basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from services vide order dated 13.04.2000, which is impugned in the writ application. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2009, confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.