- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 09.01.2011, the appellate order dated 23.02.2011 and the revisional order dated 13.08.2011.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as appearing from the writ petition are that, the petitioner was posted as Constable at Police headquarter at Dhanbad when the alleged occurrence took place. A departmental enquiry bearing no. 252/2010 was initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner was asked to appear in the orderly room on 22.10.2010 and when he appeared there he was found in drunken state. Accordingly, vide letter dated 22.10.2010, Havildar Laljee Ram and Constable Satendra Rai were directed to take the petitioner to the Medical Officer, Police Centre, Dhanbad. The Medical Officer has accordingly given a certificate recording that the petitioner had consumed liquor. In the departmental enquiry, two witnesses namely, Raj Shekhar Prasad and Samshul Haque Khan were examined. An eqnuiry report dated 27.12.2010 was submitted, holding the charges against the petitioner proved. The petitioner was afforded opportunity to defend himself and he submitted his written reply stating that his explanation submitted earlier should be taken as his final reply in the matter. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from service dated 30.12.2010. The appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioner have also been dismissed vide orders dated 23.02.2011 and 13.08.2011. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed stating as under : 6. "That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph 1, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same is prayer of the petitioner has no merit and as is liable to be dismissed. It is stated and submitted that a departmental proceeding being Departmental Proceeding No. 252/11 was initiated against the petitioner for his act of indulging in indisciplined conduct, for being police officer of doubtful character and being an incompetent police officer etc. A charge vide memo no. 7299 dated 27.10.2010 was issued against him that on 22.10.2010 he was, as informed vide wireless no. 777/RAKA dated 21.10.2010, to be present himself before "Sustika Kaksh" before the concerned authority. On 22.10.2010 when the petitioner presented himself in "Sustika Kaksh" he was found drunk and subsequently he was taken to vide office order dated 22.10.2010 through Hawaldar Laljee Ram, Constable Satendra Roy, to Medical Officers Police Line, who after examining him gave a certificate that the petitioner was drunk. This matter was reported to the answering respondent by Sergeant Major vide memo no. 7781/RAKA dated 22.10.2010. 7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that there was also a charge against the petitioner that even in past also the petitioner has been punished vie departmental proceeding no. 96/04 for absconding from election duty of Jamtara and vide D.O. No. 1937/06 his increments of two years were withheld. The petitioner was further punished earlier vide D.O. No. 365/07 whereby his six months increments was withheld and again vide D.O. No. 159/04 he was punished whereby his six months increments was again withheld. It appears from the record that the petitioner was again punished in earlier departmental proceeding no. 89/07 and D.O. No. 2272/10 was issued against him withholding his six months increments, and thereafter again the petitioner absconded from his duty and a departmental proceeding no. 68/09 was initiated and he was punished vide D.O. No. 1803/10 whereby his six months increments was withheld. Further proceeding under rule 828(C) was initiated against him for remaining absent from his duty vide D.O. No. 4292/10, his increments for six months was withheld. It is stated and submitted that the departmental proceeding was conducted by Inspector Bank More Police Station who after having conducted the inquiry in accordance with rules and after having giving the petitioner an opportunity to appear, found vide letter dated 27.12.2010, the charges to be true. The petitioner also appeared and gave his explanation which was not found to be satisfactory and accordingly the petitioner was held guilty by conducting officer.";