NAWAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND : DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, JHARKHAND, RANCHI : DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH CHOTANAGPUR REGION, JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) CHALLENGE , in this writ application, is to the order dated 15.08.2001 (Annexure -1), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 4), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Challenge also is to the order dated -04.05.2003 (Annexure -13), passed by the D.I.G., North Chhotanagpur (Respondent No. 3), which is the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 12.06.2004 (Annexure -16), passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of his dismissal. While challenging the aforesaid impugned orders, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the same and for issuing a direction to the Respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, soon after the petitioner had submitted the chargesheet in the case Registered on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Santosh Vishwakarma, the then Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh by his impugned order dated -15.08.2001, recorded and served upon the petitioner a composite charge and in contemplation of a departmental proceeding on the basis of the charge, had placed the petitioner under suspension. The substance of charge was that despite the fact that there was a longstanding feud between the petitioner's son and a neighbouring resident, namely, Bajrang Kumar son of late Banwari Pandey, both residents of Suresh Colony, Hazaribagh, the petitioner proceeded to Suresh Colony accompanied by the Police Force of the Police Town Hall Post and arrested the accused Priya Ranjan Pandey in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 227 of 2001. Before proceeding to arrest the accused, the petitioner did not give any prior information to the officer in -charge of the concerned Police Station nor had taken assistance of any Police Force of the concerned Police Station and neither had he informed his superior Police Officers. On the inference that the aforesaid acts and conduct of the petitioner was impelled by revengeful and malicious motives by way of personal vendetta, and considering such acts to be acts of misconduct under the Police Service Code, a Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Though he was called upon to appear and face the proceedings, the petitioner did not appear. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry ex parte and at the conclusion, had recorded his finding that the charge was proved against the petitioner.