- (1.) Challenging the penalty order dated 31.10.2012 and the appellate order dated 01.04.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, on 13.05.2005 the petitioner was appointed as a Constable. The petitioner was awarded Presidential Gallantry Award and thereafter he was granted out of turn promotion and was promoted on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. On 27.03.2012, the petitioner was put under suspension. A charge-memo dated 17.04.2012 was served to the petitioner to which he submitted his reply however, it was found not satisfactory and therefore, a departmental enquiry was initiated in which three witnesses were examined by the department. The enquiry report dated 30.07.2012 was submitted holding the charge proved against the petitioner. By order dated 31.10.2012 penalty of forfeiture of increment for one year was passed by the disciplinary authority. The appeal 2 preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 01.04.2013.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 stating as under, 23. "With reference to the statement made in paragraph 6 of the writ application under reply it is stated and submitted that the statement made therein is a matter of record. It is further stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police -Cum- Police Station Officer-In-Charge (Thana Prabhari) submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Khunti against the petitioner stating inter alia therein that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from one Dinesh Jaisawal and released the truck loaded with illegal stones by taking a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. 24. With reference to the Statement made in paragraph 7 of the writ application under reply it is stated and submitted that the statement made therein is a matter of record. It is further stated that the show cause filed by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and hence it was rejected. 25. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 8 of the writ application under reply it is stated and submitted that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by finding the show cause of the petitioner unsatisfactory and the said departmental proceeding was completed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Mu), Khunti. 26. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 9 of the writ application under reply it is stated and submitted that statement made therein is a matter of record. It is further stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved by the enquiry officer during the course of departmental proceeding. There is no provision of sympathy against an employee who is involved in a case of corruption. 27. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 10 of the writ application under reply it is stated and submitted that statement made therein is a matter of record. It is further stated that after finding the show cause of the petitioner unsatisfactory and after proving of the charges levelled as against the petitioner, the order dated 31.10.2012 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application has been passed by the concerned respondent. 28. With reference to the Statement made in paragraph 11 of the writ application under reply it is stated and submitted that all the matters have been mentioned in the first show cause of the petitioner. Second show cause was submitted on 17.06.2012 to the enquiry officer. In both the show causes same matter has been mentioned. During the course of the departmental proceeding no request has been made by the petitioner of taking the statement of said Dinesh Jaisawal. 29. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 12 of the writ application under reply it is stated and submitted that the statement made therein is a matter of record. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi i.e. respondent no. 3 on 28.01.2013 against the said order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the respondent no. 4. 30. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 13 of the writ application under reply it is stated and submitted that the statement made therein is a matter of record. It is further stated that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi after perusing the memo of appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner, charges levelled as against the petitioner including the order dated 31.10.2012 and taking into consideration all the materials on records has been pleased to dismiss the appeal by an order dated 01.04.2013 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. 31. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 14 of the writ application under reply it is stated and submitted that it is wrong to state that the entire departmental proceeding and findings of the enquiry report has been based on hearsay evidences. After proving of the charges levelled as against the petitioner the order dated 31.10.2012 has been passed. 32. With reference to the statement made in paragraph 15 of the writ application under reply it is stated and submitted that a written report has been submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police -Cum- Police Station Officer-In-Charge (Thana Prabhari) after making enquiry from said Dinesh Jaisawal and after confirmation of the charges of forcibly realizing the money by the petitioner from said Dinesh Jaiswal.";