NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the district order No. 561/ 2003 dated 28.5.2003 whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from the service and also the order dated 22.7.2003 passed by the appellate authority, DIG (CID), Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the petitioner 'sdepartmental appeal was dismissed by a laconic order. The said order was passed in a departmental proceeding, initiated on the basis of the charge sheet served on the petitioner containing three articles of charges, which has been annexed as Annexure -2. The petitioner was imputed with the charges, that on 26.7.2001 he was deputed as a driver of a Gypsy with CID Special Team but when the team was about to move he was not found on duty and the team had to travel to Khunti by bus; that on 27.7.2001 the petitioner was found in the drunken condition and that on 19.9.2001 medical check up was conducted and the petitioner was found under influence of intoxication and thereby he had misconducted. Against the said charge sheet petitioner had filed his reply refuting the charges and stating, inter alia, that on 26.7.2001 he was with the CID team and was on duty but as the Gypsy was short of fuel he was sent to Rambilash Petrol Pump for fetching adequate fuel. When he returned he did not find anybody in the premises of the Senior Superintendent Office and under such circumstances he parked the Gypsy in front of the office of the Crime Investigation Department and next day as per the order of the DSP he handed over the key of the Gypsy to the DSP, Sri K.B. Yadav, on his order. It was further stated by him that on 19.9.2001 he was examined by the doctor, but even the doctor found him well under control. In support of the same the petitioner has annexed the report of the doctor as a part of his show cause reply which is not disputed by the respondents. I found the report on the record which reads that the petitioner was in mild alcoholic state but he can control himself very well.
(2.) FROM the records it appears that though the petitioner has specifically stated that he had acted on the verbal orders of his superior Mr. K.B. Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police, but to falsify the same he was not called as a witness by the department. It appears from the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority as contained in Anriexure -6 that without taking into consideration the nature of the charge and the nature of the evidences brought on record the order of dismissal from service was passed. The order is not speaking and does not conform to the requirement of the rule of fair play and natural justice. Against the said order of punishment the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the DIG (CID), Jharkhand. according to him, raising several grounds for assailing the order of disciplinary authority, on which the final order was passed by the appellate authority as contained in Annexure -8, which is dated 22.7.2004. From its perusal it appears that the appellate authority without duly considering the grounds and the materials on record passed a ciyptic order dismissing the appeal in most perfunctory way.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in opposition to the grounds taken in the writ application, by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit both the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have been supported as sound and valid. In order to fortify the contention some documents have also been annexed with the counter affidavit. From perusal of the said documents as contained in Annexures -A to E it appears that earlier also the petitioner had been awarded punishment(s) for his lapses in duty. However, it is evident from the orders of punishment that for similar type of charges the petitioner was awarded light punishments.;