KHURSHID ALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Chandra Prabha, learned S.C. I for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the punishment order dated 14.01.2013, order dated 20.01.2013 and appellate order dated 29.01.2013 and further prayer made for payment of subsistence allowance from the date he has put under suspension.

(3.) Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Literate Constable in the year 1971 and he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1973 and in the year 1982 he was promoted to Sub Inspector of Police. While petitioner was posted as Officer In Charge of Pathargama Police Station on 18.11.2010, the petitioner came to know one Godda District Order No. 1125 of 2010 under Memo No. 3903 dated 14.11.2010 has been issued and whereby the petitioner put under suspension. Mr. Dubey, appears for the petitioner submits that after knowing this, the petitioner inquired about the fact. Later on, the petitioner was served with the charge wherein it is alleged that on 12.11.2010 in the night Sub Divisional Police Officer made raid, 10 gamblers were arrested while they are gambling and Rs. 65,000/- was also recovered. This raiding officer informed the Superintendent of Police, Godda that while he reached police station no guard was present which amounts to negligence of the duty and for the said reason the petitioner and one Ajay Kumar Singh have been put under suspension. On the basis of this charge, the petitioner was called upon to file his reply. The petitioner has filed his reply to the charge sheet, which was served upon the petitioner. Mr. Dubey, further submits that he came to know about the disciplinary proceeding when he served by Annexure-5 the first charge sheet. The petitioner was also served with the another charge dated 05.04.2011 wherein it is alleged that after suspension the petitioner was asked to report Godda Police Line, but, he has not reported there. Accordingly, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the departmental proceeding and participated in the inquiry. After completion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted the report wherein the inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner from the charges. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by order dated 14.01.2013 passed the punishment order against the petitioner after retirement whereby the disciplinary authority has passed the punishment order and inflicted the punishment withheld one increment for six months. It was also stated that it will not affect the increment in the salary. After that the petitioner approached the appellate authority, the appellate authority by order dated 29.01.2013 affirmed the punishment order to the effect of one black mark. The appellate authority passed the order for subsistence allowance for the petitioner. During the pendency of this writ petition, these two orders have been passed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed amendment petition for challenging these two orders. Now, the petitioner is mainly aggrieved with these two orders. Mr. Dubey submits that the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2013 whereas the impugned order has been passed just before the retirement of the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order of punishment is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it is well settled that the disciplinary authority has different finding from Inquiry Officer. Inquiry officer has to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which has not been done in this case. To substantiate his argument he relied in the case of Punjab National Bank and Other vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 paragraph 19 which reads as under