RAMASHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned writ application, the prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the notification dated 6-12-2010 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been held guilty in the departmental proceeding No. 51 of 2009 and his pay scale has been reduced to the basic pay scale of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and has further prayed for quashing of the notification dated 9-12-2013 vide Annexure-10 issued by the appellate authority by confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the enquiry report/charge-sheet dated 16-7-2010 vide Annexure-6 submitted by the Conducting Officer-cum-S.P., Bokaro.

(2.) The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner while posted at Bokaro, charge dated 17-8-2007 contained in memo No. 652 by the DIG of Police, Coalfields, Bokaro was issued to the petitioner containing various charges. The said charge was communicated to the petitioner to submit his explanation. Pursuant to the said charges, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges made therein. In pursuance to the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 15-4-2008, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bokaro vide letter dated 8-5-2008 stayed the operation of the letter dated 9-4-2008 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coalfields, Bokaro wherein the order was passed for initiation of the departmental proceeding. During the departmental proceedings No. 51/2009 a written testimony dated 8-5-2010 of the then S. P., Dhanbad was produced, which clearly goes to show that the petitioner is not guilty of the charges. In pursuance to the departmental proceeding, enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges for not taking immediate preventive action. Pursuant to the report submitted by the S.P., Bokaro in connection with the departmental proceeding No. 51/2009, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice dated 28-10-2010 whereunder the petitioner was asked to submit his reply on the basis of the report submitted by the conducting officer. After receipt of the second show cause reply filed by the petitioner and after perusal of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 6-12-2010, vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition, imposing punishment of reduction to the basic pay scale of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 6-12-2010 the petitioner submitted his appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 9-12-2013, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner left with no alternative, efficacious remedy, has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing has submitted that the impugned order of punishment dated 6-12-2010, vide Annexure-9 issued by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 9-12-2013, vide Annexure-10, is an arbitrary exercise of power being based on no evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on perusal of the enquiry report, it would be manifestly clear that all the witnesses have turned hostile except the witness Parmanand Singh, who was examined behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner has not been afforded reasonable opportunity to rebut the evidence of the said witness Parmanand Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the letter dated 8-5-2010, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the report of the then S.P., Bokaro has been taken into consideration, but no reasons has been assigned by the conducting officer as to why he differs with the said letter, therefore, the impugned order of punishment as a sequel to the enquiry report, cannot sustaine in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of reduction to the basic pay scale of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, amounts to imposition of a major punishment, which is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the avement made in paragraph 16 of the writ application, so far as prosecution witness Parmanand Singh is concerned, the same has not been controverted in paragraph 27 of the counter-affidavit, hence the averment made to the counter-affidavit is to be accepted on the doctrine of non-traverse. It has been submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, petitioner has retired from Government service on 31-12-2014.