DEEPAK ROSHAN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
(2.) The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.06.2012 and the appellate orders dated 14.09.2012 and 18.02.2013, whereby and whereunder a major punishment has been imposed as against the petitioner on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer which are baseless and unfounded in as much as the opinion in the enquiry report has been deduced in a most mechanical manner and without appreciation of the evidence and defense lead on behalf of the petitioner and also on the ground that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is excessive and not proportionate to the charges proved against the present petitioner and also on the ground that the respondents had a biased opinion as against the present petitioner and have prejudged the issue. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s), or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 28.08.2013 and 17.08.2013 whereby and whereunder the review application filed by the present petitioner pursuant to have been exonerated in the criminal case has been rejected without any application of mind, without considering the fact that the sole ground for initiation of the criminal case against the present petitioner was pendency / filing of the criminal case and there was no other charge against the present petitioner, even then after having been discharged in Cr. Revision No.614 of 2013 the review application filed against the order of termination of the petitioner has been rejected. (iii) Pass such other writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions as may deem fit and proper.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Mahila Battalion of Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP-10). A departmental proceeding was initiated by framing a memo of charge against her on 22.2.2012. The charge against the petitioner is that she was having illicit relationship with one Baijyanath Sahu, husband of Uma Devi, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi who ousted his wife from matrimonial home and that Uma Devi filed a criminal case under Section 498-A and 494 of the IPC, against the said Baijyanath Sahu which was registered as Mahila P.S. Case No.24 of 2011, in which a supervision note was given by Superintendent of Police, Hatia, Ranchi which held the petitioner guilty on the ground that this petitioner, being the member of discipline force, has acted contrary to departmental discipline. On these allegations, the charge was framed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her reply to the memo of charge. Pursuant thereto, the enquiry report dated 15.06.2012 was submitted by the Inquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued on 19.06.2012, which was duly replied by the petitioner on 23.06.2012. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service on 27.06.2012. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 10.07.2012, which was rejected on 14.09.2012. The petitioner preferred memorial to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 28.09.2012. This memorial/revision was also rejected on 18.02.2013.;