- (1.) Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 04.09.2004, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, pursuant to an advertisement, tests were conducted on 25.01.1990 and the petitioner being a successful candidate, was appointed by order dated 30.01.1990 on the post of Constable. By an office order dated 25.02.1997, the Superintendent of Police of different districts in the State were requested to initiate proceeding for termination of services of the petitioner and other seven persons. Pursuant to order dated 25.02.1997, an order was issued on 08.05.1997 for terminating the services of the petitioner and other seven persons. This was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 811 of 1997 (R) and by order dated 06.05.1998, the order dated 08.05.1997 was quashed by this Court. Again by the office order dated 23.10.2003, a direction was issued for terminating the service of the petitioner and others after issuing showcause notice. This was again challenged by the petitioner and others in W.P. (S) No. 5299 of 2003, which was disposed of by order dated 07.11.2003. Thereafter, a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.07.2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 14.07.2004 however, it was not found satisfactory and the service of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 04.09.2004. The order of dismissal was communicated vide letter dated 08.09.2004.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.6 stating as under: 7. "That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the post of Constable vide office order no. 28/1990 contained in memo no. 158/ G.S. dated 29.01.1990 issued by the then Inspector General of Police, Chhotanagpur Zone, Ranchi on temporary basis, which is evident from Annexure1 itself. As per settled rule, the Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority of Constables, but the Inspector General of Police appointed the petitioner. 8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that based on few complaints with regard to irregular appointments in the post of Constables, the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar conducted an enquiry and thereupon it was found that certainly some appointments were made without following the norms and provisions of appointment prescribed in the Police Manual or the general rules of appointment by some of the officers. As such, the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna was directed vide letter no. 4/Aa - 100/98 Gri. Aa. 10589 dated 04.09.2000 of the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar to cancel those irregular and illegal appointments in accordance with law. In the meantime, the State of Bihar had been bifurcated and the State of Jharkhand came into existence. However, in continuation of the above direction, the Inspector General of Police (Administration), Bihar, Patna vide his letter no. 1046/P2 dated 07.03.2002 informed the Director General of Police, Jharkhand about such irregular and illegal appointments of Constables and requested him to take suitable and appropriate steps against the same at his level. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Human Rights), Jharkhand, Ranchi directed all the superintendent of Police under the State of Jharkhand to take suitable steps in accordance with law against all such illegally appointed Constables. It is further stated that the appointment of the petitioner was also found irregular and illegal and accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to showcause against his irregular and illegal appointment vide memo no. 1709/Sa.Sha. dated 08.07.2004 (Annexure9). In compliance thereto, the petitioner submitted his showcause on 14.07.2004 (Annexure10) mentioning interalia that he was earlier dismissed from service vide order dated 25.02.1997 against which he preferred CWJC No. 811 of 1997 (R), which was allowed vide order dated 06.05.1998 of this Hon'ble Court and the impugned order was quashed. The petitioner further stated in his showcause that thereafter he was again removed from service vide order contained in memo no. 1389 dated 23.10.2003 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi and ultimately, filed W.P.(S) No. 5299 of 2003 along with Haridwar Singh and others. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 7.11.2003 (Annexure7) with some directions to the authorities. 9. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the Hon'ble Court disposed of few other similar writ petitions by different orders with some observations. As such, keeping in view the directions of the Hon'ble Court, a fresh notice was given to the Hon'ble Court by the above memo no. 1709/Sa. Sha. dated 8.07.2004 (Annexure9), but the petitioner failed to satisfy the authority because he did not assign any valid or genuine ground for his appointment. It is necessary to mention herein that since all the relevant documents of the appointment of the petitioner were available at Ranchi and therefore, no paper or document was required to be called for from the State of Bihar in this regard. The competent authority, thereafter, considered the case of the petitioner cautiously and found that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Constable irregular and illegal on the following grounds: a) Neither any vacancy for the post of Constable was advertised nor the competent authority called for any application, which is contrary to the rules of Police Manual as well as general rules of appointment. b) Selection Committee was not formed for the selection of the petitioner, which is mandatory for appointment to the post of Constable. On the other hand, he was appointed only on the basis of the recommendation of the then Inspector General of Police, Chhotanagpur Zone, Ranchi. c) Roster and reservation policy of the State government was not followed in his appointment. d) The mandatory physical test (such as run, jump, throw etc.) was not organized for his selection, rather only physical measurement was taken at the instance of the then Inspector General of Police, Chhotanagpur Zone, Ranchi and he was declared selected, which is a violation of prescribed rules. 10. That it is humbly stated and submitted that it is necessary to mention herein that the provisions related to the appointment of a Constable are well defined in Rules 661 (a), (b), ( c), 662, 663 (a), (b), (c),(d), 664, Clause 4 Appendix 72 of the Police Manual read with Police Order no. 202/88, but none of them were followed in the case of the petitioner. Due to these irregular and illegal appointments, a number of genuine candidates had suffered. More so, in the present case a fresh notice, was issued to the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Hon'ble Court and therefore, the petitioner has been rightly dismissed vide Ranchi District Order No. 2144/2004 followed by Training District Order No. 157/2004.";