SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner being aggrieved by revisional order dated 19.10.2006 passed by respondent no. 2, appellate order dated 10.03.2006 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 30.09.2005 passed by respondent no. 4, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The brief facts, as averred in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed as constable in Jharkhand Armed Police and while continuing as such a charge -sheet was served upon him vide memo dated 11.09.2004 alleging that on 30.07.2004 the petitioner was not found on duty and rather he assaulted and abused the manager and staff of Hindalco Company in an inebriated condition. Accordingly, a show cause was issued to which the petitioner replied denying the allegations leveled against him. Thereafter, the matter was enquired into by the enquiry officer, who found petitioner guilty of charges and accordingly the petitioner was slapped with the impugned order of dismissal dated 30.09.2005 by the disciplinary authority, which was affirmed by the appellate as well by the revisional authority.

(3.) Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the entire proceeding has been vitiated due to non -supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner and the entire finding of fact is perverse as the petitioner has not been medically examined to ascertain as to whether the petitioner was in drunken condition or not. Learned counsel further submitted that since the enquiry officer recorded the evidence of witnesses behind the back of the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to cross -examine the said witnesses, the entire enquiry proceeding is vitiated in law. Learned counsel further submits that so far as allegation of assault is concerned, no injury has been found on the person of Manager of Hindalco, hence, the allegation of assault is vague and baseless. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has got a very unbelmished service career and there is no previous misconduct committed by the petitioner.