Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) PETITIONER being aggrieved with the orders dated 22.5.2009, 14.12.2009 and 29.6.2010 by which he had been terminated from service, has approached this Court.
(2.) IT has been argued on behalf of petitioner that he had been appointed as Constable in the year 1988 and while he was posted in the security of Ex -Chief Minister Shri Madhu Koda he had been served with the memorandum of charge alleging therein, that without taking permission from the competent authority he came out from his battalion and also misbehaved with other constables who were deputed in the security duty of Resaldar Baba Mela, Doranda, Ranchi and also threatened them. After receiving memorandum of charge he had submitted his reply to inquiry officer, thereafter, one witness namely Tilak Bahadur Thapa had been examined by the inquiry officer who had stated that the petitioner had used abusive language with other constables in that mela at Ranchi, thereafter, the inquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges and submitted his report. The disciplinary authority without taking into consideration the fact that the irregularity committed by the petitioner is not so harsh, passed order impugned dated 22.5.2009 subsequently, the same had been confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner was working in the said department from the year 1988 and after rendering his services for 21 years the order of dismissal had been passed against him hence, the same is too harsh. It has further been submitted that for considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner this fact had also been drawn to the notice of the competent authority but, the said authority had not considered this aspect of the matter and had rejected the plea of the petitioner on the ground of earlier order of dismissal and other orders of punishment passed against the petitioner.
(3.) IT has further been submitted that since the petitioner had joined in the year 1988 and after rendering 21 years of his service he had been dismissed and also it had been ordered that no consequential benefits shall be given to the petitioner, absolutely harsh which not only affects him but also affects the family members who are depends upon him.;