M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 3755/86 dated 2.12.1986 by which he has been dismissed from service and also the orders dated 28.7.1987, 22.6.1989 and 30.9.1992 passed by the Inspector General of Police and Director General of Police in appeal and revision confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service and rejecting his appeal and revision. The petitioner was in the service of the respondent -Police Department as a Sepoy. After his appointment as such he was posted at Chaibasa. In 1986 because of his unauthorized absence from June, 1986 to November, 1986 he was charge - sheeted and on the same day i.e. on 11.11.1986, he was suspended. A copy of the memo of charge -sheet has been annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ application. When the Superintendent of Police who was the Disciplinary Authority did not receive any reply to the said charge from the petitioner, he passed the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service on 2.12.1986. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police which Was rejected on 28.7.1987. The petitioner then filed another appeal before the Director General of Police which was also rejected on 22.6.1989. The petitioner then filed revision/review application before the Deputy Inspector of General which was also rejected on 30.9.1992 but with certain modification regarding the effective date of dismissal. All these orders have been challenged by the writ petitioner in this writ petition.
(2.) THE respondents in their counter -affidavit stated that the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis subject to completion of his probation. From the very beginning he was found to be habitual absconder. Ultimately action under Rule 843 and 824 of the Police Manual was taken against him. It is contended that the order of discharge passed by respondent No. 5 the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum West Chaibasa is fully justified.
(3.) MRS . M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders mainly on the ground that no departmental inquiry was initiated after the charge -sheet was sent to the petitioner. Without conducting any sort of inquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the impugned order of dismissal was passed by the Superintendent of Police just after few days. From perusal of Annexure -2 which is a copy of the charge - sheet it appears that the only charge against the petitioner was that he absented from duty without any leave or permission of the authority from 9.6.1986. In the charge - sheet the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation by 30.11.1986. The said charge -sheet appears to have been issued vide Memo No. 3420 dated 13.11.1986. Curiously enough on the next date the order of dismissal was passed and that was given effect to from 25.11.1986.;