DINESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 31.12.2007 whereby petitioner has been dismissed from services and also the appellate order dated 19.08.2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected; and further prayer has been made for reinstatement of the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that while the petitioner was posted in Pirtand Thana, Giridih, it is alleged that he indulged himself in quarrel with his fellow constable Md. Idris, when said Md. Idris came to wake up the petitioner to attend his duty and further disobeyed the order of guard In-charge, for which, a charge-sheet was served upon him vide memo dated 30.07.2007 and the petitioner was asked to file show cause reply, which the petitioner submitted but it was not considered and the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. In the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges in the enquiry report dated 25.11.2007 and thereafter, second show cause was issued to the petitioner, to which, the petitioner replied, but, it is alleged that without considering the reply, impugned order of dismissal from services vide order dated 31.12007 was imposed upon the petitioner, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 19.08.2008.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the charge though it is alleged that the petitioner under the influence of liquor misbehaved with Md. Idris and also assaulted him, but at no point of time he was medically examined rather on the contrary, the petitioner in his show cause reply submitted that said Md. Idris under the influence of intoxication assaulted him resulting into the petitioner got injury on his body, which fact gets corroborated in the medical report submitted by the doctor. But that piece of evidence and submission of the petitioner has been completely brushed aside while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in spite of such glaring evidence against said Md. Idris no proceeding was initiated against him and a false case has been made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the doctor submitted injury report but he never submitted any report that the petitioner was under the influence of intoxication, which fact itself proves that he was not under the influence of intoxication. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on bare perusal of charge, it transpires that a hypothetical charge has been framed basing on surmises and conjectures stating that naxals may have assaulted the camp, which may cause heavy loss. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularity as neither any opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses was given to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding nor the material witnesses namely, Constable Arbind, N.K. Tiwary and Mahabir Dutta Ojha were examined, which vitiates the entire proceeding. Referring to judgment rendered in the case of Town Area Committee Jalabad Vs. Jagdish Prasad & Ors as reported in (1979) 1 SCC 60, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reasonable opportunity is a term of well known legal significance and includes an opportunity given to the employee to cross-examine the witnesses examined against him and to lead evidence in his defence and further the Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan Waishampayan as reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623, the Honourable Apex Court held that the right to cross-examine is a valuable right and if this right is denied in a proceeding, that proceeding will be vitiated for non-observance of rules of principles of natural justice.