SUMANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Delip Jerath learned counsel for the petitioners. No. one appears on the behalf of the State -respondent.

(2.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 26.2.2002 as contained in Annexure 9 series, whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 3, (Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhota -nagpur Range, Ranchi -cum -Deputy Inspector General Incharge Railways) has passed an order dismissing the petitioners from their services. Mr. Jerath has pointed out that all the petitioners were appointed by Annexures 1 series on the post of Constables. However, by reason of the impugned order, the services of the petitioners were terminated. According to the petitioners, after having been appointed, they Joined as Constables in Railway Police, whereafter their service books were opened. Subsequently, they underwent training for 1 -1/2 years and passed respective training whereafter they were serving the department as trained constables. Seven years thereafter i.e. on 5.2.1999 a notice was served asking them to attend an inquiry in relation to a charge which appears to have been initiated on the basis of Departmental Proceeding No. 5 of 1998. From a perusal of the aforementioned notices it appears that the petitioners were directed to present themselves in the concerned Office and were also told that if they had not received the charge -sheets, then they should obtain the same upon appearance and file their respective explanations. The petitioners have stated that having obtained the charge -sheets, they filed their respective explanations and on perusal of one of the explanations, i.e. Annexure 5, it appears that the charge against the petitioners was that they had been appointed in the year 1992 without getting the approval of the competent authority and that the selection board which had been constituted was so constituted without obtaining approval of the Police Headquarters and therefore they were guilty of having got themselves appointed without following the rules.

(3.) THE aforementioned report was filed before the respondent No. 3, who thereafter initiated notices against the petitioners, whereafter the petitioners submitted their respective replies. The petitioners have stated at paragraph 5(1) that the Deputy Inspector General of Railway Police also submitted his report to the Government on 16.9.1998 as contained in Annexure 8 wherein he stated that the appointment of the petitioners had been made by the Deputy Inspector General of Railway Police and the petitioners having served on their respective posts for such a long period of time, should not have been terminated for alleged non -compliance of some technical rules. This opinion is at paragraph 4 of Annexure 8. After the aforementioned report was submitted on 16.9.1998 the respondent No. 3 instead of calling for the opinion of the Deputy Inspector General of Railway Police, which incidentally was submitted after obtaining approval of the Director General of Police, as is apparent from the last paragraph of the said Annexure A, passed the impugned order dated 26.2.2002 terminating the services of the petitioners.