- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the materials on record.
(2.) Petitioner, by way of filing this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing/setting aside the District Order No.1991/02, dated 26.10.2002, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, whereby the increment for two years of the petitioner has been stopped and it has been directed that during the period of suspension the petitioner will not be entitled for anything save and except which is payable in the period of suspension, as contained in Annexure-6. It is further prayed for setting aside the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koyala Chetra, Bokaro, as contained in Memo No.1087, dated 1.8.2003, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected, as contained in Annexure-8.
(3.) The facts of the case, leading to the present writ petition, in short, are that while the petitioner was posted in Govindpur (Barwadda) police station and on the duty of patrolling on 15.9.2000, in course of duty, being discharged by the petitioner, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and five others being Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No.260/2000 dated 16.9.2000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein it was alleged that one Tek Lal Mahto, driver of Tanker No.BHO-5830 along with khalasi (informant) was going from his village to Kaowa Banda. As soon as the alleged vehicle reached at G.R. Road, the police patrolling party gave signal to stop his vehicle but the driver of the vehicle did not stop his vehicle rather he speeded up. Thereafter the patrolling party chased the vehicle and got the same stopped at Jorapipar in front of G.T. Road. The patrolling party pulled the driver down on the road and started assaulting him with the butt of the rifle and boots. An officer was also sitting on the patrolling jeep and he was provocating to kill the driver as he did not stop the vehicle for Rs.50/-. Thereafter it is said that the police patrolling party brutally assaulted the driver as a result whereof he died on the spot. Thereafter the petitioner was suspended on 16.9.2000 by District Order bearing No.3100/2000. Consequently, memo of charges was also issued to the petitioner on 9.3.2001 on the same set of allegation, as alleged in the aforesaid FIR. Thereafter in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR, a full fledged trial was conducted by the competent criminal court, in which the petitioner was finally acquitted by judgment and order dated 3.5.2002, passed in Sessions Trial No.100/2002. Simultaneously, departmental proceeding was also conducted against the petitioner. Enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report, whereby petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him as per enquiry report dated 30.6.2002. On the basis of the said enquiry report (Annexure-5), the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, being the disciplinary authority, vide its order dated 26.10.2002, has stopped two increments of the petitioner, which is equivalent to 3 Black mark, as also that the petitioner will not be entitled for anything save and except what was paid to him during the period of suspension, namely, subsistence allowance (Annexure-6). Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koyla Chetra, Bokaro. The appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, rejected the appeal vide its order dated 1.8.2003 (Annexure-8). Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, petitioner has preferred the present petition mainly on the following grounds: (i) that the entire departmental proceeding including the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority were passed in clear contravention of principles of natural justice; (ii) that there were two witnesses examined in course of departmental proceeding and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, namely, Tinku alias Shamim, who incidentally was one of the P.Ws before the competent criminal court and informant in that case and it has seriously prejudiced the case of the petitioner; (iii) that the penalty, imposed by the impugned orders, is excessive and disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, as also the materials available on record. This is so because if the depositions of two witnesses, as deposed before the enquiry officer, are perused, it would be evident that it did not at all support the charges levelled against the petitioner. Tinku alias Shamim stated before the enquiry officer, while he was examined, that the driver of the tanker was in a complete drunken state, which resulted into death of the driver; (iv) that exactly for the same set of allegation, a full fledged trial was conducted by the competent criminal court and once the petitioner has been given clean chit in the said criminal case by judgment of acquittal dated 3.5.2002, it was all the more necessary for the disciplinary authority not to take different view, in the facts ad circumstances of the case.;