- (1.) By Court The petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 2.2.2012 and the appellate order dated 26.10.2012.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 16.05.2009 and he gave his joining on 16.05.2009 at Ranchi Police Line. The petitioner was sent for training on 06.06.2009 and completed the said training on 13.03.2010. On 14.03.2010, the petitioner was granted five days' leave and on completion of said period, he gave his joining on 19.03.2010. He was there till 20th March, 2010 however, on getting information from his daughter regarding sudden illness of his wife, he had to leave for his native place. The petitioner again reported for duty on 24th March, 2010. In the meantime, a criminal case was registered on 23rd March, 2010 being Gonda P.S. Case No. 80 of 2010 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 465, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 26th September, 2010 and a Charge Memo was given to the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner forged the documents to secure appointment and at the time of physical verification of the newly recruited persons he intentionally remained absent so as to escape detection. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was submitted finding the charges levelled against the petitioner proved. The order of penalty dated 2.2.2012 was passed dismissing the petitioner from service and the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2012 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 stating as under, 8. "That it is humbly stated and submitted that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner vide Ranchi District Departmental Proceeding no.240/2010. Charges against the petitioner were that after getting the training from Basic Training Centre, JAP04, Bokaro, he joined at Police Line, Ranchi. After returning from the training centre, photographs and physical verification of all the trainees have been conducted on the Complaint that some of the trainees have physically been changed. Information from their application forms and physically, they have been verified. But, the petitioner at that very time, absconded without any information or permission or leave. It has been found that the petitioner after forgery, changing documents, entering wrong information in the documents have got the job. Upon this, a First Information Report (F.I.R.) has also been lodged vide Gonda P.S. Case No.80/2010 dated 23.03.2010 under Sections 419/420/467/465/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. His salary has also been withheld vide Ranchi District Order no. 1307/2010. 9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that Shri Navin Kumar Lakra, Sergeant Major no.2, Police Line, Ranchi has been appointed as Conducting Officer. During the course of inquiry, the witnesses namely (i) Shri Anuranjan Kumar Kispotta, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Ranchi, (ii) Shri Ravindra Prasad, Sergeant Major, Police Line, Ranchi, (iii) Shri Safir Ahmad Khan have confirmed the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation. 10. That it is humbly stated and submitted that during the course of enquiry, it has been found that even after taking leave, the petitioner could go for the treatment for his wife, but what he did at the time of verification, without any information he has absconded, which has created doubt upon the petitioner. The Conducting officer after completion of the enquiry has found the petitioner guilty of obtaining appointment on the basis of the forged way. 11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that after completion of the enquiry, the Conducting Officer has submitted enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after being satisfied from the finding of the Conducting Officer, going through the materials on record, seeing the exhibits, statement of witnesses has found the petitioner guilty of charges leveled against him. 12. That it is humbly stated and submitted that after that he asked the petitioner to submit his final explanation within 15 days as to why not order of dismissal be passed against him vide Memo no. 7148/ra ka dated 12.12.2011. The petitioner submitted his final explanation, but it was not found to be satisfactory. Since, it was proved that the petitioner has obtained appointment by way of forgery and after changing the document and absconded without any information, permission or leave at the time of verification of service, the disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty of charges. He passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner vide District Order no.435/12 contained in Memo no.465/ra ka dated 02.02.2012.";