MOHIUR RAHMAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the state.

(2.) Petitioner faced a departmental proceeding No.45/08 for the charges at Annexure 3 bearing memo no. 2610 dated 26.08.2008 for having remained in unauthorized absence beyond 45 days of earned leave (between 28.04.2008 forenoon to 12.06.2008 forenoon) for 37 days and presented himself before the Battalion on 20.07.2008. In between he was involved in criminal case being Darbhanga P.S. Case No. 134/08 dated 07.06.2008 for the offences under Section 341,323,307,504 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C and Section 20/30 of the Arms Act in which he was taken into custody on 07.06.2008. Pursuant thereto, he was placed under suspension vide Force order no.1364/08. Petitioner had made an application for extension of his leave with supporting medical prescriptions to the office of Commandant, JAP-5 but the information provided by the Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga showed difference in the date of custody and treatment undertaken by the petitioner which showed his character suspicious. As such departmental inquiry was conducted in which petitioner and prosecution witnesses, both were examined and cross examined before the Conducting Officer cum Inspector of Police, JAP-5, Deoghar. Charges in the Departmental Inquiry No. 45/08 were found to be established as per the inquiry report at Annexure-5. Commandant JAP-5 vide impugned order at Annexure-6 dated 17.01.209 had been pleased to impose punishment of withholding of annual increment for 1 year which would have effect upon his future increments. Petitioner would also not be entitled for salary beyond the subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension. Appeal preferred during pendency of this application was also dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2010. The same has been challenged through I.A. No. 3767 of 2013. The proposed amendments were allowed vide order dated 26.06.2013. Petitioner has superannuated from service by now.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded in the inquiry vary from the charges imposed upon him. The Disciplinary authority has also given finding, which were not specifically against the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that charges though related to unauthorized absence but it also alleged suspicion over the character in view of the difference of the date of his custody and the medical treatment undergone by him. According to the petitioner, he was taken in custody on 09.06.2008 after being released from Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital where he had been admitted on 07.06.2008 after having sustained injuries in connection with same incidence by the informant party. Respondents during the inquiry have erroneously treated him to be in custody since 07.06.2008 itself. He had made an application for extension of leave on 09.06.2008 after being discharged from hospital and before being taken into custody. The impugned punishment imposed with cumulative effect has also entailed cascading effect on his future increment and total salary till his superannuation. As such, it is also excessive and disproportionate. The Appellate Authority has failed to consider the ground in appeal in proper manner and rejected it. Therefore, the impugned decisions deserve to be set aside.