- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 12.4.2012 and the appellate order dated 25.6.2012. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the year, 2005. On 16.1.2012, the petitioner was suspended on the allegation that during his examination in the criminal case, he turned hostile. A charge-memo was served upon the petitioner and an enquiry was initiated. During the enquiry, the department examined three witnesses and the petitioner examined himself in his defence. The enquiry report dated 28.2.2012 was submitted, finding the charge proved. A second show-cause notice was given to the petitioner on 12.3.2012 and the petitioner submitted his reply on 20.3.2012. After considering the materials on record, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from service on 12.4.2012. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 25.6.2012 and therefore, in these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it is stated:-- 9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the matter pertains to a notice issued by the public prosecutor to the petitioner who was earlier posted at Balumath Police Station and was part of a raiding party which seized narcotics and arrested accused persons in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 11/2011 dated 23.2.2011 (NDPS Case No. 5/2011). The petitioner was presently posted in Garu Police Station and was required to come to the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Latehar as a witness to record his deposition in the case. 10. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner on receipt of such notice from the office of the Public Prosecutor was relieved to go to the Court for his evidence and contacted the Public Prosecutor on 11.1.2012 in his office. The petitioner has himself stated that he reached the office of the Public Prosecutor on 11.1.2012 at 10:30 a.m. and remained in his office till about 2 p.m. after which he was taken to court to record his statements. 11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Public Prosecutor explained to the petitioner the details and background of the case and also informed him about the statements of the other witnesses. The petitioner was also narrated the First Information Report of Balumath P.S. Case No. 11/2011 and he read the same as well. Thereafter the petitioner was taken to court to depose in the said case. 12. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner on being questioned by the Public Prosecutor refused to co-operate and inspite of being briefed about the case well in advance, stated before the learned court that he does not remember the incident at all. It is pertinent to mention herein that the role of the petitioner is highly objectionable and he purposely stated that he does not remember the incident which ultimately led to him being declared "hostile" by the prosecution. 13. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the evidence of the petitioner was crucial for the fate of Balumath P.S. Case No. 11/2011 as the petitioner was one of the members in the raiding party and was present on the spot when the contraband substances were seized and the accused persons arrested on the spot. .... 15. That it is humbly stated and submitted that despite being present on the spot on the date of the occurrence, the complete denial of the incident by the petitioner will give undue advantage to the case of the accused in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 11/2011. .... 16. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the action of the petitioner being a policeman and having raided and seized narcotics as stated hereinabove, it is not possible that he will forget the incident within one year. The same was also narrated to him and documents were made available to him to go through before this deposition in court by the public prosecutor, which clearly indicate that the statement of the petitioner was given only to provide undue advantage to favour the accused in the Balumath P.S. Case No. 11/2011.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;