IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 2980 of 2004
...
Saligram Dubey ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Division, Ranchi.
4. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... Respondent.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s. R. S. Mazumdar and P.A.S. Pati, Advocate.
For the State : - Mr. K. K. Mishra, J.C. to S.C. (Mines).
...
12/19.02.2010
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this
writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has challenged the order
dated-07.11.1997, passed by the Respondent No. 4, namely, the Commandant,
Jharkhand Armed Police-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner has been
compulsorily retired from his service from the post of Constable. Challenge also is to
the order dated-30.06.1998, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South
Division, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the impugned order of his compulsory retirement, has been dismissed.
3. The petitioner being a Constable, was posted on Sentry duty at Balidih
Picket. In course of inspection conducted by the superior officer at about 12 mid
night in between 04.02.1997/05.02.1997, the petitioner was found lying asleep,
keeping his rifle in a corner of the Picket. He was promptly removed from his place
of duty and another constable was substituted and thereafter, he was served with a
charge sheet in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The petitioner
submitted his show-cause replies but being not satisfied with the same, a
departmental proceeding was initiated.
Admittedly, the petitioner was given opportunity to participate
and to submit his defence in the departmental proceedings. As it appears from the
enquiry report, the petitioner did not choose to cross-examine any of the witnesses
examined by the Prosecution. It also appears that the petitioner had admitted the
alleged act of misconduct but had sought to explain that he was suffering from
Malaria, while he was posted in the state of Assam and on account of the lapse of the
ailment, he was not in proper condition to perform his duties.
4. It appears from the enquiry report that this aspect of the petitioner’s
case, as appearing in the show-cause replies, was though taken note of, but in
absence of any supportive evidence and in view of the illegible medical certificate,
no reliance was placed on the same nor did the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary
Authority given any concession to his aforementioned explanations. At the
conclusion of the enquiry, finding him guilty of the charges, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, who on being satisfied with the
findings ,proceeded to record the impugned order of punishment for the voluntary
retirement of the petitioner, though after having issued a second show cause notice to
the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the
Enquiry Officer did not appreciate the explanations offered by the petitioner in
proper perspective and the Disciplinary Authority has also ignored the same.
6. It appears that the Enquiry officer did advert to the explanations as
appearing in the petitioner’s show-cause replies but in absence of any specific
evidence adduced by the petitioner, no reliance was placed on the same.
It further appears that the petitioner was given due opportunity
to submit his defence in the departmental proceedings and also to submit his show-
cause replies as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted upon him,
but he choose not to submit any explanations or replies to the second show-cause
notice. The act of misconduct of which the petitioner has been found guilty, does
invite the extreme punishment as per the Rules contained in the Police Manual. The
Disciplinary Authority, in his opinion, has found that the punishment as imposed, is
commensurate to the act of misconduct, declared as an act of gross indiscipline
unbecoming of a personnel of the Police services.
7. I do not find any impropriety or perversity in the findings of the
Enquiry Officer or in the impugned order nor any material to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, there being no merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK