ONKAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter is called out, learned counsel for the appellant is absent.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the respondent-State, at length, who has submitted that for the grossest misconduct committed by this appellant, charge-sheet was issued on 16th April, 2008 (Annexure-1). The charges levelled against this appellant were about dereliction on duty and absenteeism from the place of employment though he is a member of disciplined Force-Jharkhand Armed Police-VII, District-Hazaribagh. He was posted at very sensitive area at Hunterganj Police Station, District-Chatra and he was found absent on 22nd March, 2008 when checking was done between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon. Another police man viz. Shri Sudeshwar Mahto was to be deputed at the place of this appellant and thereafter the appellant joined his duties on the next day i.e. on 23rd March, 2008 at 12:00 noon. He had also not taken care of his fire arm and live cartridges. Thereafter enquiry officer was appointed, who gave enquiry report on 24th June, 2008. Adequate opportunity of being heard was given to this appellant and charges levelled against him have been held as proved by the enquiry officer and, thereafter, before imposing punishment again opportunity of being heard was given and the disciplinary authority-Commandant of Jharkhand Armed Police-VII finally imposed punishment upon this appellant and his pay scale was reduced to the lowest pay scale of the cadre for three years vide order dated 9th Aug., 2008, against which, departmental appeal was preferred by the appellant and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12th Jan., 2009 (Annexure-6). Against this concurrent finding of facts, writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1827 of 2009 was preferred by this appellant, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the respondent-State and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: