- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred against an order, passed by respondent no. 4, Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro, dated 30th September, 2009, which is at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition, whereby, the punishment, inflicted upon the petitioner of dismissal from service, has been re-affirmed, after the order passed in a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2757 of 2003, dated 5th March, 2009.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that looking to the nature of misconduct, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that previously against the very same punishment, a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2757 of 2003 was instituted by this petitioner, wherein, vide order dated 5th March, 2009 it was ordered to reconsider the quantum of punishment and in pursuance of the said order, the respondents have again considered the case of the petitioner and a detailed speaking order dated 30th September, 2009 has been passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro and looking to the seriousness of the misconduct that the petitioner had entered into the house of one Sri Mahesh Shukla and with his daughter he had illicit relation, he has been dismissed from service. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that several witnesses have been examined during course of inquiry and adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to the petitioner and, thus, there is no procedural defect in holding the inquiry and, thereafter the petitioner was again given an opportunity of being heard and initially the order was passed on 8th February, 2002, in which also the petitioner was dismissed and thereafter, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, which was also dismissed on 28th July, 2002 and thereafter, the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2757 of 2003 was preferred and in pursuance of the order, passed by this Court in the said writ petition, again the case of the petitioner was reconsidered on the quantum of punishment and again the order of dismissal has been passed. The quantum of punishment, looking to the nature of misconduct, thus, cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate nor it is unreasonably excessive and hence this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3.1 Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It is alleged against the petitioner that on 23rd July, 2000 at about 23.30 hours the petitioner, who was working as a constable, was caught red handed by a Night Patrolling Party, when he was coming out of the hosue of one Sri Mahesh Shukla, who was also a constable at the relevant time and was residing in the same campus. There are serious allegation against the petitioner about the illicit relations with Beena Kumari, who is daughter of Sri Mahesh Shukla, who was also a constable residing in the same campus. (ii) Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner; inquiry was conducted; several witnesses were examined, during course of inquiry; adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and thereafter, inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer, wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found to be proved, looking to the depositions of the witnesses. The earlier order passed by the Commandant is at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition, which reveals the depositions given by several witnesses, so examined. Thus, there is no procedural defect in holding the inquiry. (iii) So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, it appears that the charges levelled against the petitioner are very serious in nature. The petitioner, who was a police constable, was coming out of the house of another police constable, namely, Sri Mahesh Shukla, and was having illicit relation with the daughter of said Sri Mahesh Shukla. With these allegations, the charge sheet was issued, inquiry was conducted, the charges were found to be proved, more than half a dozen witness have been examined. Looking these charges, the quantum of punishment cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate or unreasonably excessive. (iv) The petitioner was working in a discipline force. He ought not to have behaved in such a manner. Therefore, the quantum of punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate or grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. Thus, no error has been committed in dismissing the petitioner from service, after coming to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved.;