AJIT KUMAR S/O LATE BIPIN BIHARI SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT POLICE HEADQUARTER, P.O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 21.10.2010 passed by Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ranchi; order dated 15.11.2010 whereby the name of the petitioner been struck off, appellate order dated 14.03.2011 and revisional/memorial order dated 16.05.2012, pertaining to dismissal of the petitioner from services, the petitioner prayed for quashing of the aforesaid orders and also prayed for reinstatement of the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the year 1997. After joining, he continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his authorities. However, in the year 2006 due to ailments, he was advised by the doctors of RINPAS to undertake light duty and unarmed duty. But, due to ill luck of the petitioner on 12.06.2006 while the petitioner was on duty at Karra Police Station, it is alleged that the petitioner fired two rounds from his riffle in air and the report to this effect was given to Officer-in-Charge, Karra Police Station, basing on which, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 27.06.2006. Thereafter, memo of charge was framed against the petitioner for the alleged offence for indiscipline and dereliction of duty and departmental proceeding was initiated. It is submitted that in the departmental proceeding witnesses were examined in absence of the petitioner. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, without enclosing the enquiry report, to which, the petitioner replied stating therein that he was advised by the doctor for light duty and unarmed duty and further that the firing from the riffle was not intentional. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 21.10.2010. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal and revision, which were also rejected.

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