LAWS(JHAR)-2016-11-121

DWARIKA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAGHURAJ SINGH, RESIDENT OF B/102, OM NIRMALAYA APARTMENT, P.O & P.S Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On November 30, 2016
Dwarika Prasad Singh, Son of Late Raghuraj Singh, resident of B/102, Om Nirmalaya Apartment, P.O And P.S Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W.P. (S) No. 6254 of 2010, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of impugned order of punishment dated 1.11.2010, whereby petitioner has been imposed with the impugned punishment in the following manner:

(2.) In W.P. (S) No. 6203 of 2010, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police and further to recommend his name for the select list of the Indian Police Service and further direction upon the respondents to pay the benefits of the second A.C.P from the date his juniors have been considered and granted promotion.

(3.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the W.P. (S) No. 6254 of 2010 is that initially the petitioner was appointed on 10.10.1984 as direct Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, petitioner was posted in different places of Bihar and Jharkhand and by passage of time, while the petitioner was posted in Jharkhand Armed Police-4 in the year 2006, charges were framed against the petitioner of dereliction of duty and misconduct and accordingly departmental proceeding was initiated. It is alleged that though no show cause notice was called before initiation of departmental proceeding but after initiation of departmental proceeding petitioner was served with the show cause notice, to which, he replied. It has further been averred that enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Against the findings of the enquiry report, the petitioner was asked to submit second show cause notice to which he replied. It has further been averred that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, enquiry report was sent to disciplinary authority, who basing on the findings of the enquiry report imposed the impugned punishment.