- (1.) WHEN the matter is called out counsel for the petitioner is absent.
(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents has pointed out that against the petitioner there is a charge that the petitioner being a Transport Officer has taken unauthorisedly Rs. 3.000/ - from his subordinate i.e. the Driver Hawaldar in year. 1999 mainly on the ground that if the money is not paid the Driver Hawaldar will be sent out of the head office for his duty as the wife of the Driver Hawaldar had expired in year. 1997, he has also to take care of his one year daughter and therefore under this pretext the present petitioner was demanding money unauthorisedly from the Driver Hawaldar. Charge -sheet was issued upon the petitioner. Inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer against the present petitioner and adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to the petitioner for representing his case and several witnesses were examined by the employer State authorities and the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved as per the departmental inquiry officer's report dated 30th April. 2002, which is annexed with the supplementary affidavit. filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 5th May. 2010 and witness, namely Ganesh Ram was examined as witness on behalf of the Management. The Management has also recorded the statement of Rajendra Ravidas who has given clear statement against the present petitioner. Witness No. 2 - Hawaldar Shem Barla who has stated that when the Driver Hawaldar was to send for duty outside the headquarter then this petitioner had favoured the Driver Hawaldar for not to send him out of the head - quarter duty. Likewise, several witnesses have been examined by the Management Rajendra Ravidas who was examined as Management witness No.4. has clearly stated that Rs. 3.000/ - was taken from the Driver Hawaldar for not to send him out of the Headquarter duty. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that on the basis of the evidences on record the Inquiry Officer has arrived at correct conclusion that charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved vide his report dated 30th April. 2002. Thus there is no procedural lapse in holding the inquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of being heard before imposing the punishment and the Disciplinary Authority has thereafter imposed a punishment of dismissal vide order dated 17th December, 2002 which is at Annexure -II to the memo of the present petition passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Against this order a departmental appeal was preferred by the delinquent and the appeal was also dismissed by the Inspector General of Police vide his order dated 31st December. 2003, which is at Annexure -12 to the memo of the present petition, Thus it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and there is no procedural lapse while holding the inquiry. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the nature of misconduct committed by the petitioner is so grave that the order of punishment awarded cannot be termed as shockingly disproportionate punishment. The petitioner is wedded with discipline in the police force and he has obtained Rs. 3.000/ - from his subordinate officer. This type of corrupt practice cannot be tolerated in the police department and therefore the order of punishment is absolutely in consonance with the nature of misconduct and therefore this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case : (1) it appears that there are serious charges against the petitioner. Petitioner has obtained unauthorisedly Rs. 3.000/ - from the Driver Hawaldar on the ground that if the money is not paid he will be sent out of the Headquarter for duty. The Driver Hawaldar who has paid the money had to take care of his one year daughter because his wife had expired in the year. 1997. For this charge a chargesheet was given to the petitioner. Opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed. (ii) it further appears from the facts of the case that inquiry was conducted and several witnesses were examined by the Management. Looking to the evidences of Rajendra Ravidas. Hawaldar who is witness No.4, and also looking to the evidences given by witness No.3. namely Daneyal Kerketta. Hawaldar, it appears that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved. There is also other evidences given by witness Nos. 1 and 2 who are also from the police department. Looking to these witnesses a correct conclusion has been arrived out by the Inquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the present petitioner have been proved. Looking to the evidences on record it cannot be said that the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer is based upon no evidence on the contrary there are enough evidences on record to show that the petitioner has received Rs. 3.000/ - from the Driver Hawaldar not to assign his duty out of the Headquarter. Looking to the evidences on record it appears that initially. Rs. 5.000/ - was demanded and the matter was settled for Rs. 3.( 00/ -. Thus looking to the evidences the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. The departmental Inquiry Officer has given a report on 30th April. 2002, which is annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 5th May. 2010. Thus. looking to the facts of the present case there is no procedural lapse in holding the inquiry. Adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to the petitioner to represent his case. (iii) So far as quantum of punishment is concerned it appears that the charges levelled against the present petitioner is serious in nature which have been proved. The petitioner being an officer in the disciplinary force has demanded money of Rs. 3.000/ - from his subordinate for not to assign the duty out of the headquarter. This type of misconduct of the petitioner cannot be tolerated in the disciplinary force. Any lenient view will give encouragement to others and therefore the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Ipspector General of Police dated 17th December. 2002, which is at Annexure -II to the memo of the present petition is absolutely in consonance with the nature of the misconduct committed by the present petitioner. It cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment nor it can be said that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct on the contrary it is absolutely in consonance with and proportionate to the nature of misconduct committed by the petitioner. Right to appeal was also given to the petitioner. Again the petitioner was heard before the Inspector General of Police and his departmental appeal was also dismissed.;