- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 8.12.2003, the appellate order dated 29.4.2004 and the revisional order dated 8.10.2005. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Bihar Military Police and at the relevant time in the year, 2003, he was posted as Constable Driver with Jharkhand Armed Police at Hazaribagh. On 5.7.2003 and 18.7.2003 one Raj Kumar Verma submitted a complaint against the petitioner and on such complaint, a charge memo dated 16.8.2003 was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that he had offered to purchase the Ambassador Car bearing No. BRN/6516 belonging to the complainant Raj Kumar Verma for Rs. 50,000/. He gave an advance of Rs. 101/and promised to pay the balance amount. However, after much effort he paid Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant and refused to pay the balance amount of Rs. 30,000/-, and therefore, he committed cheating and unauthorisedly retained the car with himself and thus, committed misconduct. Alongwith the charge memo the complaint dated 5.7.2003 and 18.7.2003 of the said Raj Kumar Verma, a copy of the inquiry report dated 11.8.2003 conducted by one Sri Alok, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the statement of Raj Kumar Verma, were supplied to the petitioner. In support of its case, the department proposed to examine as witnesses Raj Kumar Verma, Upen Singh and Brajesh Singh. An inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report was submitted whereunder the inquiry officer opined that in view of the materials on record the allegation against the petitioner becomes doubtful and therefore, the benefit of doubt can be given to the petitioner. However, by an order dated 8.12.2003, the disciplinary authority held that the charges against the petitioner are proved and therefore, he inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. The appeal as well as the revision petition preferred by the petitioner were also dismissed by orders dated 29.4.2004 and 8.10.2005 and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present application.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed stating as under: 6. That at the outset it is stated that while the petitioner i.e. constable 1154 Driver Anil Kumar Pandey was posted at JAP-7, Hazaribagh, he made an offer to one Raj Kumar Verma of Mahabir Chowk, Hazaribagh to purchase his Ambassador Car bearing No. B.R.N. 6515 at the cost of Rs. 50,000/- and after giving advance of Rs. 101/- he took away the car and assured to make payment of balance amount. At that time one of the friend of the petitioner who is presently posted in JAP-9, Sahebganj was also present. After taking over of the ambassador car, the petitioner did not turn up nor make payment. After much request and persuasion made by the owner of the car namely Raj Kumar Verma, the petitioner paid only Rs. 20,000/- and rest balance amount has not been paid till date. The petitioner being member of disciplined force, kept the car forcibly without making payment of the same by playing fraud and such conduct on his part is indicative of indiscipline, misconduct and doubtful character. 7. That for the aforesaid allegations, departmental proceeding No. 29/2003 was initiated against the petitioner During the course of conduction of the departmental proceeding, the car owner namely Raj Kumar Verma appeared and stated that on account of marriage of his daughter, he was in need of money and therefore, he decided to sale the car and in this process, constable No. 1154 Anil Kumar Pandey who is friend of his younger brother, showed his willingness to purchase the car. Since petitioner, Anil Kumar Pandey, was the friend of his younger brother, and hence, after taking Rs. 101/- as advance, he (Raj Kumar Verma) handed over the key of the car to the petitioner with stipulation that he will pay Rs. 50,000/- i.e. the cost of the vehicle. After taking of the car, the petitioner did not make payment of the amount for a long time and thereafter the said Raj Kumar Verma met the petitioner in the premises of JAP-7, Hazaribagh and after much request, the petitioner has made payment of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) and the petitioner asked said Raj Kumar Verma that rest amount will be paid only after he (Raj Kumar Verma) will sign the sale letter. Since constable Anil Kumar Pandey was friend of his younger brother, therefore, in good faith, he signed on the sale letter. He further stated that he was making his demand for payment of rest amount and the petitioner has paid further Rs. 8,000/- and 2,000/- respectively. This way, the petitioner has paid only Rs. 20,000/- out of Rs. 50,000/-. In the meantime, the petitioner, Anil Kumar Pandey was transferred from JAP-7, Hazaribagh to JAP-1, Ranchi. Due to non-payment of balance amount of the car, he (Raj Kumar Verma) made an application to the Commandant, JAP-1, Ranchi and in light of the application made by the car owner, the Commandant, JAP-1, Ranchi directed the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Alok to make inquiry who after making enquiry submitted his repot stating therein that Driver constable No. 1154 Anil Kumar Pandey has kept the car of Raj Kumar Verma forcibly by playing fraud. 8. That during course of departmental proceeding, the petitioner submitted his reply. Since the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved, therefore, the petitioner was issued second show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. Copy of the enquiry report was also enclosed with the said show cause. 9. That in order to linger the matter, the petitioner made an application on 4.12.2003 praying therein to grant further time for filing second show cause and the said application of the petitioner was rejected on the same date and communicated to him vide Memo No. 556 dated 4.12.2003.
(3.) A supplementary affidavit dated 4.5.2010 has also been filed by the respondent No. 4 stating as under:-- 10. That it is further stated and submitted that it clearly reveals from the service book/record of Anil Kumar Pandey that in 11 years of service, he has faced 13 minor and 4 major punishments for his indisciplined behaviour, fraud nature and dubious character. It is further stated and submitted that from these records, it apparently explains that the petitioner is of criminal nature, who used to show the power of uniform and indulge in illegal and indisciplined activities. Although department gave him several times opportunity to improve himself but still there was no change in his behaviours and character and same cannot be expected from him in future. His negative personality could affect the department's reputation and could also send negative vibes among others. Therefore, the only alternative was to dismiss him from the service.;