RAM KHELAWAN PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2.8.2004 (An -nexure -6) passed by the respondent No. 3 and the order dated 18.10.2004 (Annexure -7) passed by the respondent No. 2, by which he was dismissed from service.

(2.) PETITIONER was posted as Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police. A complaint was filed by one Vivek Chakraborty against the petitioner, alleging therein that on 10.8.1999 the petitioner had made illegal raid in his jewellery shop and had illegally seized gold biscuits from the shop on the charge that the same was smuggled goods and had also taken away a sum of Rs. 1.30 lakhs belonging to the complainant kept in the shop. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered and the matter was investigated and on the basis of the charge -sheet submitted therein, the petitioner was put on trial. On the basis of the same complaint and on the same set of facts, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner. Charge in the departmental proceeding was that on 10.8.1999 the petitioner had made an illegal raid in the complainant's Jewellery shop without prior intimation or permission of his superior officer and that, he had seized gold biscuits suspecting it to be a smuggled goods besides a sum of Rs. 1.30 lakhs, from the shop of the complainant and had not prepared any seizure list and neither had he registered any FIR relating to the seizure of the articles and, further, that he had intimated the complainant Vivek Chakraborty threatening to lodge a case against him and had obtained the complainant's signature on four blank papers and lastly that, he had criminally misappropriated the seized gold biscuits and a sum of Rs. 1.30 lakhs and he had thereby committed gross misconduct and dereliction of duty.

(3.) AGAINST the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2 bringing to the notice of the appellate authority that on the same set of facts, a criminal proceeding was pending against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. He had also pleaded that in the departmental inquiry, the material witnesses including the complainant Vivek Chakraborty, was not examined at all and the complainant's purported statement recorded by the Inspector of Police was filed in evidence and proved through a formal witness without examining the Superintendent of Police either.