SANJAY KHALKHO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ application is to the order dated 14.11.2003 (Annexure -4) passed by the respondent No. 5 whereby the petitioner was discharged from the post of Police Constable and also to the order dated 26.6.2004 (Annexure -5) of the appellate authority namely the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan Range, Chaibasa whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order of his dismissal was dismissed and also to the order dated 28.9.2007 (Annexure - 6) passed in the petitioner's Memorial Appeal by the Director General -cum -I.G. of Police, Jharkhand. Praying for an order to quash the aforenoted impugned orders, the petitioner has also prayed for an order/direction to the concerned respondents, as may be deemed appropriate under the law.

(2.) EARLIER , against the order of his discharge passed in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner had preferred a writ application before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 2200 of 2004. While disposing of the writ application, this Court had directed the appellate authority to dispose of the petitioner's appeal filed against the order of his discharge, within a period of three months. Against the impugned order of the appellate authority the petitioner had filed another writ application before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 4386 of 2004. By order dated 6.4.2007, a Bench of this Court had permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ application with liberty to prefer a Memorial Appeal before the competent authority. His Memorial Appeal having been dismissed by the impugned order (Annexure -6), the petitioner has filed this writ application against not only the order of dismissal of his Memorial Appeal but also against the earlier orders both of his discharge from service and the order dismissing his appeal against the order of discharge.

(3.) SRI S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the failure of the enquiry officer to examine the material witnesses to afford opportunity to the petitioner to cross -examine them and on the other hand, placing implicit reliance on the ex -parte enquiry report submitted by the Dy. S.P., the departmental proceeding was conducted in a most arbitrary manner and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer was therefore, perverse, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel contends that the subsequent letter of the petitioner's wife, on whose initial complaint the departmental proceeding was initiated, had herself submitted her denial of the allegations even during the pendency of the departmental proceeding and such denial ought to have been considered by the enquiry officer. The manner in which the departmental proceeding was conducted, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner in his defence. Learned counsel adds further that the petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the report of the enquiry officer and the findings recorded therein and this fact was categorically stated in the Memorial Appeal filed by the petitioner and also before the appellate authority.