- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 30.06.2012 and the appellate order dated 08.09.2012. The brief facts of the case are that, on 27.01.2012, a charge-memo was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that on 01.11.2012, when he was posted at R.P. Post No. 1, some newly recruited constables sneaked out of the campus and the petitioner failed to register the name of those three persons. The petitioner submitted his reply on 02.02.2012 however, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted into the matter and on 27.06.2012 the enquiry report was submitted holding the charge of not entering the name of the three newly recruited constables in the register, proved. The disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of withholding annual increment which would be equivalent to two Black Marks. The appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 08.09.2012 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) A counter-affidavit 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 it is not maintainable and the petitioner does not deserve any relief's as claimed by him. The fact in brief is that the petitioner was on duty during 14:00 hrs to 17:00 hrs on 01.01.2012 at R.P. Post No. 1. In the meantime 50 to 60 I.R.B.-4 Latehar trainees forcibly and illegally exited from that Gate and started misbehaving and assaulting with the local shopkeepers and created uproar scene there which amounted to riots. The petitioner did not maintain the register which kept there for exit and depart on that date i.e. 01.01.2012. The register itself shows that on 31.12.2001 and 02.01.2012 was found maintained where as on 01.01.2012 it was kept blank or plane. It was found neither maintained nor any description of the occurrences or forcibly and illegally exit of those I.R.B.-4, recruits. This is the sheer faults on his part which amounted to concealment of facts. A Constable guard is supposed to be vigilant and ought to have a keen eyes on the in and out of the gate, and if there occurs any indiscipline or odd situation, he must record or maintain it on the register. In the departmental enquiry, the conducting officer found him guilty of the offence of not maintaining the register of the date in question which amounted to gross negligence on his part and this answering respondent accorded the findings of the conduction officer and passed the order of punishment against the petitioner. To maintain the strict discipline in the police, negligence of duty can not be ignored or pardoned.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;