NITA SINGH, Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.06.2012 (Annexure-5), passed by the Commandant, JAP-10, Mahila Battalion, Hotwar, Ranchi and the order dated 19.12.2013, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi (Annexure-7) pertaining to infliction of punishment of forfeiture of one year increment without cumulative effect, which is equivalent to two black marks, which has been reduced to one black mark by the order of the appellate authority vide Annexure-7.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application are that, when the petitioner was posted in Mahila Battalion, JAP-10, Hotwar, Ranchi, as Constable, allegations were levelled against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was absent on three occasions of the assembly and availed the facilities of visiting the market as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. In pursuance to the aforesaid charges, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. Thereafter, a Departmental Enquiry bearing No. 09 of 2012 was initiated against the petitioner and the enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer after thorough enquiry into the matter exonerated the petitioner from some charges and held the petitioner guilty for other charges. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority without issuance of the second show cause, passed the order of punishment dated 26.06.2012 (Annexure-5) forfeiting one year increment without cumulative effect tantamounting to two black marks. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority on consideration of the grounds taken by the petitioner and on consideration of the alleged misconduct, has reduced the quantum of punishment up to two black marks to one black mark. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the impugned orders of punishment vide Annexures-5 and 7 to the writ application are not legally sustainable on the ground that the impugned orders of punishment have been passed without issuance of second show cause notice and without complying to the provisions of Rule 826 of the Police Manual. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the enquiry officer has submitted a vague and confusing report, on the one hand, he has exonerated the petitioner from the charges and on the other hand, he has found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Enquiry Officer has blown hot and cold at the same time, so on the basis of this perverse finding by the Enquiry Officer, the impugned order of punishment vide Annexures-5 and 7 could not have been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that considering the gravity of charges, the impugned order of punishment is grossly disproportionate to the proved misconduct.