ANUJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority (Respondent No. 5) in departmental proceeding no. 45 of 2004 vide order dated 31.07.2008, relating to the Award of punishment of dismissal from services and being confirmed by the order passed by the appellate authority dated 15.12.2008, the instant writ application has been filed for quashing of the said orders and for reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as averred in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable no. 35 in the year 1999. While, the petitioner, who was deputed and posted at Railway Police Station, Daltonganj, departmental proceeding No. 02 of 2008 was initiated against him on serving charge sheet vide memo dated 02.01.2008 and the petitioner participated in the said enquiry denying all the charges levelled against him. In the departmental enquiry, the petitioner stated that false allegation has been levelled against him at the instance of one Anil Kumar (constable no. 278), who assaulted the petitioner on 15.01.2007 due to which he became faint. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report vide Annexure -4 to the writ application and thereafter, vide Annexure -5 dated 31.07.2008, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order awarding punishment of dismissal from services. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority but the appellate authority has also rejected the appeal vide order dated 15.12.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision dated 19.01.2009 vide Annexure -8 to the writ application, before the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, but till the filing of the writ application, no order was passed in the said revision. Left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Heard Mr. (Dr.) S. N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned J.C. to A.G. appearing for the respondents.