UMAKANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.05.2014 passed by Disciplinary Authority i.e. Commandant, IRB-2 Chaibasa Camp, Musabani whereby the order of forfeiture two years increments of pay amounting to three black marks has been passed and he would not be entitled of anything except given during the period of suspension and the petitioner has further prayed for all the consequential benefits after setting aside the impugned order dated 24.05.2014 be given to the petitioner.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 10.04.1986 and after cadre bifurcation, the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre and in course of time, he was promoted to the post of Havildar in the year 2005. While the petitioner was deputed at C-Company, Pachadumar, Garhwa, a complain was levelled against the petitioner by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Nityanand Upadhayay regarding threat to kill him by bullet in an inebriated condition. In pursuance to the said threatening, a preliminary enquiry was held and the report was sent to the Commandant for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension on 05.01.2013 and the petitioner was served with a charge memo issued on 14.03.2013 on the allegation that the petitioner has abused Deputy Assistant Sub Inspector of Police namely Nityanand Upadhyay in inebriated condition and also threatened to shoot him as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ application and the petitioner was asked to file show cause reply and the petitioner submitted his reply denying and disputing the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, inquiry officer was appointed and the inquiry officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ application. The petitioner was asked to file last show cause which was filed on 09.05.2014. Thereafter, order of punishment has been passed by the disciplinary authority basing on the findings of the inquiry report by inflicting the punishment of forfeiture two years increments of pay amounting to three black marks and the petitioner would not be entitled of anything except what has been given during the period of suspension as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority along with requisite documents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the departmental proceeding is based as no evidence, therefore, the impugned order of punishment is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far the second charge regarding threatening to kill Assistant Sub Inspector while he was in inebriated condition, has been negatived by Annexure-2 and also Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that when the charges has not been proved the so called inquiry report being perverse, one of the punishment based on the said inquiry report is assailable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the non examination of main witness-cum-complainant vitiated the entire departmental proceedings. Moreover, hearsay evidence has been substantively proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charge of being in a state inebriation or drunken condition, which has not been proved by any medical evidence, even though the same was insisted upon by the respondents. Therefore, absence of conclusive medical evidence and charge of being under the influence of alcohol could not have been proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has referred to the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 277 and AIR 2006 SC 3475.