D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is wrongly dismissed from the services, initially by the disciplinary authority and wrongly the said order is confirmed in the departmental appeal. These orders are at Annexures - 4 and 6 to the memo of petition. Learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner's dismissal order may be considered, if at all, the respondents want to consider only on conviction and not prior thereto as per Jharkhand Police Manual Rules.
(2.) I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, who has submitted that after the selection of the present petitioner on 20th May, 2006, he had to declare in prescribed format whether there is any criminal proceeding is pending against him or not. Thereafter, the petitioner has stated that there was no criminal proceeding against him. Therefore, when it was revealed to the respondents that the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is registered against the present petitioner, immediately chargesheet was issued, which is at Annexure -1 to the memo of petition and ultimately the services of the present petitioner have been brought to an end after holding departmental inquiry and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the said order is also confirmed in the departmental appeal vide order at Annexure -6. Thus, there is no procedural defect in holding inquiry and the quantum of punishment is not disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is now already convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment. Having heard learned Counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the ease, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) When the petitioner was selected for the post of constable on 20th May, 2006, he had to declare whether there is any criminal proceeding is pending against him or not. (ii) It appears that despite the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code were already registered as on 20th May, 2006, there was no declaration by the present petitioner. (iii) It also appears that, thereafter, when it was brought to the notice of the respondents, a chargesheet was issued at Annexure -1 to the memo of petition, thereafter, inquiry was conducted, the petitioner was heard, charges were proved against the petitioner in the departmental appeal and the disciplinary authority has taken a decision of dismissal from the services of the present petitioner. The said order is dated 9th September, 2008 at Annexure -4 to the memo of the petition. Looking to this order, it appears that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in terminating the services of the present petitioner. There is no illegality in holding inquiry and quantum of punishment is not disproportionate. Moreover, the petitioner is already convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) IN light of these facts, I am not inclined to issue any writ of Mandamus upon the respondents for appointment of the present petitioner in the police force. There is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;