RAJIV KUMAR PASWAN Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 11.09.1998 passed by the respondent no.4, the Superintendent of Police, Gumla inflicting the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from services and for quashing the order dated 10.03.2004 pertaining to dismissal of the appeal by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi, respondent no.3 and the petitioner has further prayed for direction to the respondents to reinstate him in services with all consequential service benefits.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as emanated from the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on 20.11988 in the district of Lohardaga. During course of his service, the petitioner was transferred to the district of Gumla. While continuing as such in the district of Gumla, memo of charge was framed against the petitioner vide memo dated 01.06.1998 vide Annexure-3. The charges levelled against the petitioner runs as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the alleged charges levelled against the petitioner i.e. reporting of sick, does not come under the purview of misconduct, therefore, charges levelled against the petitioner is non est in the eye of law. Hence, the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is vitiated, on the ground of vague and untenable allegations. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on perusal of enquiry report it would be revealed that the enquiry officer has reported that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. The enquiry officer is required to say as to whether charge is proved or not but he cannot arrogate the power of disciplinary authority to say that the charged employee is guilty. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the decision of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority under the provisions enshrined in Rule 826 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Police Manual, suffers from non application of mind. The disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order only on the basis of previous records of service of the petitioner which is not the part of the charge, therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the grounds taken in the appeal by the petitioner vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition has not been considered by the appellate authority in right perspective and cryptic and non speaking order has been passed by the appellate authority which cannot sustained in view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 (para-19). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that delay of six years in filing the writ application by the petitioner should not come in the way of imposition of capital punishment, otherwise it would amount to miscarriage of justice.