DEEPAK ROSHAN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
(2.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.231/Go dated 31.08.2015 passed by respondent No.4; whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from his service and also for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.2734/Sa.Sha dated 04.12.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
(3.) The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in JAP-1 on 27.12.2001. Subsequently, he was deputed to S.T.F Jharkhand Jaguar. During his service period in S.T.F, he was deputed with search team against Naxal at Jhoomara Pahari, Hazaribagh, where from he was trained as N.S.G Commando. Thereafter he was again sent back to JAP-1, Ranchi. While he was posted at Ranchi, a charge-sheet was issued against him with respect to selling of 7 live cartridges. There was specific allegation that he sold seven live cartridges to one Ashish Kumar Mothe after taking money; for which an F.I.R. was also lodged being Chutia P.S. Case No.230/2014. The petitioner duly replied to the charge-sheet accepting the fact that he has given seven live cartridges to Ashish Kumar Mothe in good faith who happens to be his friend and son of other police personnel; however specifically denied the charge that he has taken money or is doing business of selling of live cartages with Naxal and antisocial element. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was conducted and the petitioner duly appeared and put forth his stand. Finally, the Inquiry Officer after holding that though the petitioner has given seven live cartridges to Ashish Kumar Mothe; however, selling of live cartridges to Mr. Mothe or doing business of cartridges has not been proved. The Inquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report and the disciplinary authority after accepting the enquiry report passed the order of dismissal against this petitioner. The petitioner further challenged the order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority; however the same was also rejected. ;