Alok Singh, J. - (1.) UNDISPUTEDLY , enquiry officer, vide his enquiry report dated 30.12.2010, was pleased to exonerate the petitioner from the charges levelled against him, however, disciplinary authority - Superintendent of Police, Koderma, did not agree with the report of the enquiry officer and was pleased to impose punishment of stoppage of six increments, vide order dated 28.01.2011. Statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribagh, vide order dated 14.11.2011. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that admittedly, no second show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner, which was must in view of the fact that enquiry officer was pleased to exonerate the petitioner from the charges, whereas disciplinary authority had taken a contrary view to the view taken by the enquiry officer. While placing reliance on the judgment of this Court, in the case of Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., in W.P.(S) No. 2691 of 2006, decided on 03.07.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if disciplinary authority was inclined to take contrary view to the view taken by the enquiry officer, he had to issue notice to the delinquent employee showing the reasons for taking contrary view and proposed punishment, which was not done in the present case, therefore, order impugned stands vitiated.
(3.) MR . Mohan Kumar Dubey, J.C. to A.G., submits that there is no dispute regarding settled position of law, however, authorities may pass fresh order, after issuing notice to the petitioner, in view of the settled position of law. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are hereby quashed. However, Respondent No. 4 shall be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law, if he so wishes.;