- (1.) The present petition has been preferred against the departmental proceedings against the present petitioner whereby the present petitioner has been terminated from the services.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Constable in the police department and there are charges levelled against the present petitioner that he had consumed liquor on 10th October, 1992 and had gone at the house of Dr. Kanhaiya Dayal Sinha and had misbehaved with him and had insulted him by using filthy language. Second charge against the present petitioner was that at the police station also, the petitioner had misbehaved with other officers of the police department and third charge against the present petitioner is that even though he was stopped to behave like this, he had not obeyed and continued misconduct and when he was sent for medical report, then in stead of going to a doctor for medical examination, he had ran away. Thereafter, departmental inquiry was conducted, charges levelled against the present petitioner were proved and he was dismissed from the services. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter departmental appeal was preferred by the present petitioner and the appellate authority had considered the case of the present petitioner, matter was remanded, thereafter, the petitioner was terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition, which was allowed and again the matter was remanded to the departmental appellate authority for passing a detail speaking order and, thereafter, vide order at Annexure-4, departmental appellate authority has passed the order on 13th September, 2007 whereby the dismissal of the present petitioner has been confirmed and, therefore, the present petitioner has challenged the said order in this petition. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental appellate authority has not considered the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner had not consumed the alcohol and had not misbehaved with any of the police officer, looking to the order of the appellate authority. It is not a speaking order at all and, therefore, the order passed by the departmental appellate authority, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of petition, deserves to be quashed and set aside,.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) It appears that the present petitioner was working as Constable in the police department. He had consumed alcohol on 10th October, 1992 and had misbehaved with Dr. Kanhaiya Dayal Sinha by reaching his residence, he used filthy language and insulted him. This charge has been proved in the departmental inquiry, which was conducted against the present petitioner. The petitioner was heard before the inquiry officer at length. So far as second charge is concerned, the present petitioner has also misbehaved with other officers of the police department and so far as third charge is concerned that the petitioner was ordered to stop this misconduct, he did not obey and had continued his misbehaviour at the police station and when he was sent to a doctor for medical check up as he had consumed liquor, deliberately he had not gone. All these three charges have been proved in the departmental proceeding. Looking to the method of holding inquiry, it appears that due notice and hearing has been given and adequate opportunity has also been given to the delinquent. Thus, there is no procedural defect in holding the departmental inquiry against the present petitioner. I have perused the order passed by the Director General of Police (Training), Ranchi, Jharkhand dated 13th September, 2007 at Annexure-4 whereby, the appeal has been dismissed by long speaking order and looking to the said order, it appears that all the points raised by the petitioner has been considered properly. It can not be said from the order passed at Annexure-4 dated 13th September, 2007 that it is a non application of mind. On the contrary, the order passed by the Director General of Police (Training) is absolutely true, correct, legal and in consonance with the evidence on record. (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued out the case about the quantum of punishment and submitted that the petitioner could not have been given punishment of dismissal from the services. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the punishment imposed upon the present petitioner, can not be levelled as shockingly disproportionate especially looking to the fact that the petitioner was working in the police department and had consumed liquor, thereafter, misbehaved with citizen, who is Dr. Kanhaiya Dayal Sinha and, thereafter, at police station, he continued his misconduct and had misbehaved with high ranking police officer and especially when he was directed to stop his misbehaviour, he had not obeyed the order and continued his misbehaviour and when he was sent for medical check up as he had consumed liquor, he had deliberately escaped. At much later stage, he had gone to the doctor for medical check up so that there may be a report in his favour. Looking to this behaviour and place where he was working, the imposed punishment can not be levelled as shockingly disproportionate or grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. No error has been committed by the respondent authorities in dismissing the present petitioner.;