SARIFUDDIN HAFIJULLAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order, dated 31.01.2008, passed by the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa as well as the order, dated 30.5.2009, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan Range, Chaibasa, pertaining to dismissal from services and the petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner from the date of dismissal with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the instant writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year 1990 in the district of Chaibasa. While posted in the district of Chaibasa, there was allegation of involvement of the petitioner in making forged Home Guard Certificate as well as interpolation in the master chart of the candidates selected in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 01/08. Thereafter, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473 and 120 (B) of the I.P.C. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner and the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the departmental proceeding was initiated vide letter, dated 06.02.2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The matter was enquired into and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 31.10.2006 vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his reply to the enquiry report and the impugned order of dismissal from services, dated 31.01.2008 was passed vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan range, Chaibasa and vide order, dated 30.5.2009, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal affirming the petitioner guilty of charges. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, passed by the Disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner left with no other efficacious and alternative remedy, has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similarly placed senior employee, namely, Major Rama Kant Prasad, who was proceeded departmentally on the same set of charges has been inflicted with lesser punishment of stoppage of annual increments for two years, which is equivalent to 3 black marks but the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of dismissal from services, which is higher and capital punishment and the petitioner ought to have been inflicted with lesser punishment at par with Major Rama Kant Prasad on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing by referring to the supplementary affidavit has also submitted that he has been acquitted of all charges in the criminal case vide judgment, dated 30th May, 2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 01st Class, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in TR No.02 of 2016 arising out of G.R. Case No. 211 of 2001. Thus, the petitioner along with co-delinquent Major Rama Kant Prasad has been acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that although the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2001 but the charges against the petitioner was framed in the year 2004 and there was inordinate delay in the initiation of the departmental proceeding, which is hit by Section 42 of the Police Act. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceeding is vitiated due to the fact that the enquiry report is based on suspicion and on surmises and conjectures, therefore, the enquiry is liable to the quashed.