IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A.No.193 of 2009
Ratan Paswan. ... ... ... ... ...Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Bihar now Jharkhand through the
Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of
Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Assistant Inspector General of Police (Welfare)
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (B.M.P.15)
Now J.A.P., Ranchi.
5. The Commandant, B.M.P. now J.A.P. 5, Deoghar. ...
... ... ... ... ..Respondents
------------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Appellant(s): M/s Someshwar Roy & Manish Kumar,
Advocates.
For the Respondent(s):
------------
04/ 06.11.2009
We have heard the Counsel for the appellant but we find no
substance in this appeal, which is directed against the order dated
24.02.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No.5854 of 1998(P) which was dismissed.
Consequently, the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Commandant,
B.M.P. dismissing the appellant from the service of the Respondents-State
where he had been discharging his duty as a constable, was upheld.
A departmental proceeding had been initiated against the
appellant to the effect that while he was discharging his duty as a
constable, he had committed offence of outraging the modesty of a girl
aged about 15 years for which an enquiry was initiated and in course of
enquiry, the petitioner-appellant was identified by the victim girl and her
mother who had lodged a complaint, at the stage of preliminary enquiry.
The evidence of the victim girl was treated as conclusive evidence on the
charge levelled against the appellant and in course of enquiry, it was
noted that the appellant, in the past also, had committed offence like using
abusive language against his superior officers and was found in a
drunken condition on many occasions during the duty hours and had
committed similar offence of eve-teasing and molesting the girls in the
past but no order of dismissal was passed granting him opportunity to
mend his behaviour which he failed to comply as he committed the alleged
offence for which an enquiry had been initiated.
The petitioner-appellant had been granted full opportunity to
disprove the charges levelled against him which he could not succeed and
hence filed a petition before the learned Single Judge contending that the
charges levelled against him were vague. The learned Single Judge
2.
refused to accept this contention and was pleased to dismiss the writ
petition.
In this appeal also, learned Counsel for the appellant has
reiterated the submissions advanced before the learned Single Judge in
which we find no substance as it is difficult to appreciate how the
charges could be held to be vague when it was specifically laid down in
the memorandum of charge regarding the offence alleged against the
appellant and the appellant had full opportunity of rebuttal before the
Enquiry Officer. The order of dismissal, therefore, was rightly not
interfered with by the learned Single Judge and in the appeal we find no
reason to take a different view from the one taken by the learned Single
Judge.
This appeal thus has no substance and hence it is dismissed
at the admission stage itself.
[Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J.]
[D.K.Sinha,J.]
P.K.S./S.B.