GURUCHARAN SOY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 24.09.2007 contained in Memo No. 4016 passed by the respondent No.5 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) by reasons of which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and also for quashing the order dated 04.04.2008 contained in Memo No. 573 (Ka) [Annexure-11 to the writ petition] passed by the respondent No.4 in terms of which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service along with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 28.11.2003 the petitioner joined service as a constable. On 31.02004 i.e. within a period of four months from joining of his service, Barajamda Police Outpost, Chaibasa (District-West Singhbum) was attacked by extremists at about 2 P.M and in the said incidence, the extremists looted rifles and cartridges from the said outpost. On 01.04.2004, an FIR was registered in relation to the said incidence being Barajamda P.S. Case No. 16/2004. On 05.04.2004, the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa sent a detailed report to the Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand about the said incidence. The Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa through the said report dated 05.04.2004 pointed out the fact that the place of incidence falls in Naxal infested area and there was no proper boundary at the said outpost. About 40-50 extremists attacked the outpost while another group of 10- 20 extremists stood in guard, sentry was present in the outpost, but was taking rest, reason for the said incidence was unsafe location and small size of the police outpost as well as less numbers of police personnels deputed in the outpost. The Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa vide his report dated 05.04.2004 also suggested to depute more police personnels on the said outpost. Further, as per the supervision report of the Sub-divisional Police Officer, Kiriburu dated 30.05.2004, it was concluded that the cause of incidence was negligence on the part of the sentry. In the meantime, on 18.05.2004, a proforma chargesheet was issued to the petitioner. On 27.05.2004, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply to the proforma chargesheet and thereafter on 10.06.2004, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner with the following charges: (a) He was deputed as In-charge of Trained Home Guards. (b) He did not depute sentry for protecting five rifles / take any step to protect the rifles. (c) He did not fight against the Naxals. On 22.06.2004, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply before the enquiry officer primarily taking the following defence: (a) The attack was all of a sudden and the circumstance led to the said incidence. (b) The police outpost was situated in Naxal infested area. (c) The Naxals arrived in civil uniforms and thus their attack could not be anticipated. (d) One Kailash Paswan was already on sentry duty and due to small size and limited space of the police outpost, no separate security guard was posted, as all the weapons were placed in one room only, which were being guarded by Kailash Paswan. The petitioner also took a plea that he never ran away from the outpost and was present during the alleged incidence. After conclusion of the enquiry proceeding, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on 06.02.2006 holding, inter alia, that the charges against the petitioner were found proved. During the enquiry proceeding, only two witnesses appeared i.e. PW.1 Anand Joseph Tigga and PW.2 Ashok Kumar, who only proved the documents. On 25.09.2006, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and vide order dated 24.09.2007, the respondent No.5 (disciplinary authority) passed the order of punishment against the petitioner dismissing him from service. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of punishment dated 24.09.2007, however, the same was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 04.04.2008.