SHASHI KANT MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 30.04.2011 contained in Memo No.31/GO passed by Commandant (respondent no.3) and also the order dated 05.09.2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, JAP, Ranchi, whereby the order passed by the Commandant (respondent no.3) to dismiss the petitioner from services with effect from 30.04.2011 and the order of the disciplinary authority to the effect that nothing would be paid to the petitioner for the period under suspension except the payment already made, has been upheld by the appellate authority.

(2.) The factual matrix, as averred in the writ application, in a nutshell is that on the basis of the complaints, charge sheet contained in Memo no.851 dated 20.05.2010 was issued by the respondent no.3 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The gist of the charge pertains to exchange of hot words after the end of the duty, which took place between the petitioner and the Police 141 namely Gopal Yadav, which resulted injury sustained by Gopal Yadav being assaulted by the petitioner by a lathi. In pursuance to the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the said charges. The matter was enquired into and the enquiry report disclosed that it was a case of exchange of hot words but the petitioner was held liable for indiscipline. The disciplinary authority (respondent no.3) basing on the enquiry report without issuing second show cause notice dismissed the petitioner from services with effect from 30.04.2011 and passed the order that nothing would be paid to the petitioner for the period remaining under suspension except the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner, vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no.2, who also upheld the order passed by the Commandant, respondent no.3 vide Annexure-5 to the writ application, which are impugned in this writ application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority have travelled beyond the jurisdiction in imposing major punishment of dismissal from services which is excessive, harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the past acts have been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority, therefore, he has travelled beyond his jurisdiction. Since disciplinary authority is forbidden to take note of past conduct, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is violation of Rule 824 of Police Manual, since there has been no dereliction or negligence of duty or violation of service conditions. Since when there was scuffle/quarrel, the petitioner was not in duty, hence there was no violation of service condition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been singled out for being inflicted with major punishment, where as the other delinquent Mr. Gopal Yadav has been exonerated from the charges. Moreover, the non-examination of the complainant has vitiated the whole proceeding, therefore the entire proceeding is based on no enquiry, since the enquiry report is perverse and based on no evidence.