PASHUPATI MISHRA (POLICE 587, G COMPANY) SON OF RAMASHANKAR MISHRA RESIDENT OF HOTWAR P.O. AND P.S. HOTWAR DISTRICT RANCHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.10.2008 vide memo no. 2118 passed by the D.I.G., Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 08.04.2008 vide memo No. 242/Confidential issued by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-8, Lesliganj, Palamau was affirmed by the respondent no. 3 and further prays for quashing the order of punishment passed by the Commandant, dated 08.04.2008, Jharkhand Armed Police-8, Lesliganj, Palamau, whereby the petitioner's increment for two years was seized and the same was treated as three black marks.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed and delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner is working as Police 587 in G Company at Jharkhand Armed Police, Lesliganj, Palamau. It has been further averred in the writ application that the petitioner was sent on election duty for the bye-election of Jamshedpur constituency held in the year 2008. It has been stated that after the election was over the petitioner went to submit his rifle on 18.08.2007, when it was alleged that the petitioner took 10 extra bullets with the intention to commit theft of the said bullet. It has been further submitted that when the in-charge pointed out to the petitioner, the petitioner said that out of mistake he had taken extra bullet. It has been further stated on the next day, the petitioner enquired from the in-charge that whether he did communicate to the Commandant about the aforesaid fact, who in turn replied in affirmative and thereafter the petitioner misbehaved with the in-charge. It has been further stated that on the aforesaid facts memo of charge was framed on 8.10.2007 and the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 30.08.2007 with a direction that he should attend the head quarter of the battalion. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Commandant, JAP-8, Lesliganj before the D.I.G., JAP, Ranch but the D.I.G. vide its order dated 23.10.2008 has affirmed the order of the Commandant. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, learned J.C. to A.A.G. for the respondent State.