TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 21.6.2002 (Annexure 10) by which the disciplinary authority (Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur) discharged the petitioner from the post of police constable in pursuance of Departmental Proceeding No. 31 of 2002. The petitioner also prays for quashing the order dated 5.11.2002 (Annexure 1) passed by the respondent No. 2 (Deputy Inspector general of Police, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi) by which, in exercise of powers under the appellate jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also makes a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay his entire dues of salary from 20.1.2002 to 8.4.2002 (i.e. period of suspension) and from 21.6.2002 till date together with a consequential order that he should be posted at a suitable place on the post of a Constable.
(2.) THE short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that in the year 1980, the petitioner was appointed on the post of a Constable in the Bihar Police. In January 2002, while he was posted as a Constable in the Jamshedpur Civil Court, an accused namely Akhilesh Singh along with other accused persons were brought from jail custody for production in Court. On 18.1.2002 there was no posting of any Assistant Sub Inspector in the Jamshedpur Sadar Court save and except the petitioner who was the only Constable posted there along with one Laldeo Singh who was posted as a havildar in the Sadar Court and who was also incharge of the Court lockup. The three accused persons including Akhilesh Singh were handed over to the petitioner for their production in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur and the petitioner who was escorting them with handcuffs produced them in Court, but while returning Akhilesh Singh managed to remove the handcuffs and fled away. The petitioner who was holding the rope of other two accused persons started shouting and requested people present there to chase and catch the accused Akhilesh Singh as he was himself not in a position to do so as he was holding the rope of the other accused persons. The petitioner then came to the Court Lockup, reported the matter to Havildar Laldeo Singh and thereafter he rushed to chase the absconding accused but to no avail. Subsequently, Havildar Laldeo Singh informed this matter to his superior officers and also gave a written information to the Superintendent of Jail, Jamshedpur, whereafter the said Superintendent of Jail intimated the Officer -in -Charge, Bistupur Police Station and on the basis thereof Bistupur Police Station Case No. 19 of 2002 was instituted under Sec.224 of the Indian Penal Code against only one accused namely Akhilesh Kumar Singh vide Annexure 1. The petitioner was not shown as an accused in the said first information report which was instituted on 18.1.2002 but two days thereafter i.e.. on 20.01.2002, the Investigating Officer filed a requisition praying addition of Sec.225 and Sec.120 -B of the Indian Penal Code which was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner and Havildar Laldeo Singh.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3) did not take any step to arrest the absconding accused and on the day when the petitioner was released from jail, i.e. 21.1.2002, suspended the petitioner and Laldeo Singh vide suspension Order No. 162 of 2002 (Annexure 3) and also ordered the initiation of a departmental proceeding appointing the Sergeant Major 2 as the conducting officer who was also directed to frame charges against them. In compliance of the directions made, the conducting officer (respondent No. 4) framed draft charges on the next day, i.e., 21.2.2002 against the petitioner alleging, that due to his carelessness and dereliction of duty, Akhilesh Singh had been able to escape from custody. The petitioner was directed to submit explanation to the draft charges contained in Annexure -4. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 4.2.2002 expressing innocence and prayed that till pendency of the criminal case, the departmental proceeding should be kept in abeyance. In spite of the aforesaid prayer, the conducting officer continued with the departmental proceeding which was registered as departmental proceeding No. 31 of 2002.;