SHEO LAKHAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 08.02.2010 by which petitioner has been punished in departmental proceeding by reduction of his present pay-scale to stage of basic pay-scale for one year from the date of order and further for quashing appellate order dated 22.12.2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner joined police force on 01.11.1992 as police constable and by passage of time, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. While continuing as such, on 11.08.2008, when he was deputed in Deoghar at Sarwani Mela, one S.I. Sheo Kumar Shardul came and told him that Zonal I.G., Dumka is calling you. It is stated that however, the petitioner after attending the natural call met the Zonal I.G, Dumka, the Zonal I.G., Dumka asked the petitioner to do his duty properly, to which, he replied that he is doing duty properly as per instruction. On hearing this, the Zonal I.G, Dumka became angry and asked S.I. Sheo Kumar Shardul to submit a report against the petitioner. On getting such report, the petitioner was suspended, however, later on his suspension was revoked. But, in the meantime, the I.G., Dumka wrote letter to the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh to start a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Accordingly, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and enquiry officer was appointed who submitted his report and basing on the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, the S.P. Hazarinagh recommended punishment of dismissal from services but the D.I.G, Hazaribagh having found the punishment disproportionate, awarded punishment of reduction of rank to basic pay for one year, which is impugned in the present writ application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the departmental enquiry the petitioner was found guilty without examining the eye witness-S.I. Sheo Kumar Shardul. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the D.I.G while passing punishment order violated Rule 832 of the Police Manual and section 7 (a) of the Police Act, 1861, which provides reduction or forfeiture of pay as pecuniary penalty for one month's salary whereas the respondents-authorities passed reduction of present pay-scale to basic pay-scale of A.S.I for one year, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable on this count.