- (1.) Questioning the issuance of charge-sheet dated 16.07.2010, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, order of discharge dated 01.11.2013 was issued which was challenged by the petitioner by filing amendment application and the said application being I.A. No. 8448 of 2013 has been allowed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) Pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2004, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable in Jharkhand Armed Police Force and he was selected and appointed on the post of Constable. The petitioner joined the post on 18.05.2005. On 11.01.2007, the petitioner was summoned by the Inspector General of Police, J.A.C., Ranchi and his height was re-measured on 11.01.2007. By order dated 25.01.2007, the petitioner was discharged from service with immediate effect. The petitioner challenged the order of discharge dated 25.01.2007 in W.P.(S) No. 2717 of 2007 which was allowed by order dated 20.11.2009 and the impugned order dated 25.01.2007 was quashed. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with 50% back-wages. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service. On 26.02.2010, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and a charge-memo dated 16.07.2010 was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that he secured appointment deceitfully getting his height measured at 171.5 c.m. The petitioner responded to the show-cause notice and the charge-sheet issued to him, raising a plea of res-judicata and pendency of Contempt Case (Civil) No. 138 of 2010. Finally, by order dated 01.11.2013, the petitioner has been discharged from service with immediate effect.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that when the height of the petitioner was re-measured, it was found that initially the height of the petitioner was wrongly measured at 171.5 c.m. and on that basis he was offered appointment. On re-measurement, his height has been found 165.2 c.m. Paragraph Nos. 8 to 12 of the counter-affidavit are reproduced below: 8. That it is humbly stated that the petitioner had earlier preferred the writ petition W.P.(S) No. 2717/2007 for quashing the force order No. 74/07 dated 25.01.2007 passed by then Commandant, J.A.P.-9, Sahibganj whereby the petitioner was discharged from the post of constable from Jharkhand Armed Police-'IX' Batalion, Sahibganj, Camp-Deoghar on the ground that the height of the petitioner was re-measured in view of the anonymous/secret complaint letter, which is given to the office of Inspector General of Police, Vigilance cum Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi. Thereafter, a proper enquiry and re-measurement of the height of the petitioner has been done by the then Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi on dated 11.01.2007 in presence of then Commandant, J.A.P.-1, Ranchi in his office, wherein after re-measurement the actual height of the petitioner was found 165.2 c.m., which is much lesser than the height 171.5 c.m., which was contrary and wrongly recorded at the time of selection by the selection committee & also the height differ from the height mentioned by the petitioner himself in his application form i.e. 176 c.m. Thereafter for this reason the then Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi issued a letter vide memo No. 27/C dated 16.01.2007 to the then Commandant, J.A.P.-7, Hazaribagh-cum-Chairman of selection committee, Board No. 3 stating therein about the difference in the height of the petitioner. Thereafter the Chairman of Selection Committee, Board No. 3 had issued a letter to the Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi vide memo. No. 142/G.S. Dated 21.01.2007 stating therein that due to the difference in the height of the petitioner, which is on re-measurement found to be 165.2 c.m. The petitioner's point was reduced from 16 to 13, for which the Chairman of selection committee, Board No. 3 cancelled the previous recommendation of the selection of the petitioner and also informed and requested to the then Commandant, J.A.P. 9, Sahibganj to take necessary step for the dismissal of the petitioner. Accordingly, an impugned force order 74/07 dated 25.01.2007 was passed by the authority concerned, in which petitioner was dismissed from his service. 9. That the Hon'ble High Court quashed the impugned force order-74/07 dated 25.01.2007 on technical ground and vide judgment order dated 20.11.2009 passed in WP(S) No. 2717/07 allowed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the above mentioned judgment order is as follows: "I am satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without adherence to the rules of procedure as laid down in the State Police Manual and is also in violation of the Principal of Natural Justice. Accordingly, I find merit in this writ application and the same is therefore allowed. The impugned order dated 25.01.2007 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with 50% of back wages. The period during which the petitioner has remained out of service, shall be treated as period spent on duty. 10. That it is stated that pursuant to the direction given by the Hon'ble Court the petitioner was reinstated and 50% back wages was also paid to him. Though the appeal (LPA) inadvertently could not be filed, hence order of the Hon'ble High Court was complied properly. 11. That it is submitted that the height of the petitioner was re-measured and it was found to be 165.2 c.m. Further, it is stated that the cutoff marks for the general candidates for which the last general candidates was selected is 15 point and after re-measurement the height of the petitioner is reduced to 165.2 c.m. which is much lesser than the height which was contrary and wrongly recorded at the time of selection by the selection committee i.e. 171.5 c.m. Therefore, the petitioner's point was reduced from 16 to 13 and for that reason he can't be selected against the general category seat. 12. That it is submitted that the height of last general candidate selected in the Advertisement No. 01/2004 was 169.5 c.m., whereas the height of the petitioner was found 165.2 c.m. after re-measurement. Therefore, the last candidate of general category who was selected had secured 15 points, whereas the petitioner secured only 13 points after re-measured of his height. Therefore, if petitioner would be selected who has secured only 13 points after re-measurement of his height, then other candidate of the same category (General) who were secured less than the cutoff marks/points i.e. 15 points would also claim for their appointment, which will not be justified.;