GIRIJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 18.09.2009 whereby punishment of compulsory retirement has been passed against the petitioner; and for quashing order dated 28.06.2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, is that while the petitioner was posted in Dhanbad, charges were framed against him vide order dated 26.03.2008 to the effect that:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since his appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1985, the petitioner worked to the best of his ability and because of his candid approach, the petitioner was elected as Secretary of the Police Association Dhanbad and in that capacity, he highlighted some of the misdeeds and illegal activities of the Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that due to extreme torture by the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, the petitioner had filed complaint case against him and for this reason by various means, they tried to put pressure upon the petitioner to withdraw the case, which the petitioner did not resulting into initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner became the victim of rival factions of the association. Actual fact is that while the petitioner was posted at Police Control (PCR), Dhanbad, the petitioner visited the residential office of S.P., Dhanbad on 18.02008 where he was assaulted by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad and their officials but contrary to it Station Diary Entry No. 615 was lodged against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has also filed a criminal case being Cr. Revision No. 103 of 2010 against the then Superintendent of Police and others for alleged assault upon him and has filed another complaint no. 1559 of 2010 in relation to forged entry dated 18.02008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner's witness was also abducted by the police officials in canteen, which was published in Hindi daily newspaper 'Hindustan" dated 29.02008.