Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of discharge from service passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police (J.A.P.) VIth, Jamshedpur in Departmental Proceeding No. 7 of 2000 contained in memo no. 261 dated 11.7.2003. He has also challenged the appellate order rejecting his appeal bearing memo no. 465 dated 18.5.2004.
(2.) THE petitioner was a constable under the erstwhile, respondent -Government of Bihar and was proceeded against on the allegation of one Mukut Mani Devi that she was married to the petitioner and during subsistence of his marriage, the petitioner was going to solemnize the second marriage with one Kumari Jayanti on 27.3.1999. She also had alleged that the family members of the petitioner were demanding dowry in the shape of Motorcycle and T.V. The said allegations were inquired into and the preliminary inquiry conducted by the respondents, prima facie established the allegations. On the basis of the report of one P.P. Nag, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bihar Military Police, 11, Jamshedpur, which is at Annexure A to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 5 dated 6.11.2006, the charges were submitted to the petitioner through letter dated 6.1.2000 requiring him to give explanation on the allegations that during the subsistence of his first marriage with Mukut Mani Devi, he had chosen to enter into second marriage with one Kumari Jayanti without seeking permission. It was further alleged that the petitioner had been implicated in a criminal case being Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 20 of 1999 registered under Section 498A/34 I.P.C. read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at the behest of his first wife, Mukut Mani Devi. The petitioner made his representation against the alleged charges on 15.2.2000, on the one hand accepting Mukut Mani Devi as his first wife while denying any effort on his part to enter into marriage with another girl, Kumari Jayanti. He also hurled allegations against Mukut Mani Devi in his representation that her conduct was not good. She indulged in regular quarrel and she had left with valuable articles from his house along with her mother on 15.01.1995. In the said representation he also stated that from 2.10.1995, the relationship with his first wife, Mukut Mani Devi and her mother Shakuntala Devi had almost ended. Therefore, the proposed proceedings may be dropped. However, being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the departmental proceeding was initiated on 23.3.2000 being Departmental Proceeding No. 7 of 2000 for the same charges. One Mr. S. Tirkey, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bihar Military Police -11, Jamshedpur was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who issued notices upon him to file statement of defence on 5.4.2000. The petitioner, on receipt of the aforesaid letter initiating departmental proceeding, sought time to file explanation. However, he surrendered on 2.12.2000 before the Trial Court in connection with the criminal case and was released on 3.10.2001. However, petitioner did not inform the Inquiry Officer of the reasons for his absence till he surrendered on 2.12.2000 and only after being released after 18 months of initiation of the departmental proceeding, he reported his arrival to the office of Commandant on 22.10.2001. He did not offer any explanation for the period of his absence and then again proceeded on leave on 3.4.2002 for 6 days but willfully overstayed for 140 days without any intimation and again joined on 1.8.2002. The complainant, in the meantime had appeared in the departmental proceeding regularly and her statement was also recorded on 14.3.2001 after a gap of one year of initiation of departmental proceeding. After the appearance of the petitioner he was given a copy of the statement of witnesses recorded by the Conducting Officer and the proceeding was adjourned for the next date for cross examination of the witnesses by him. Though, the witnesses appeared on different dates, but the delinquent willfully absented and did not appear for cross examination. In the wake of aforesaid conduct of the delinquent, notices were again sent to the address of the delinquent -petitioner as contained in the service book, which is also reflected in the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and on his appearance, he was again asked to file his final statement of defence giving him time till 21.7.2002. However, he again made a request for adjournment of the departmental proceeding and also for keeping the departmental proceeding in abeyance because of the criminal case pending against him before the competent Trial Court.
(3.) IN the background of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Inquiry Officer, after considering the deposition of the witnesses including the complainant, Mukut Mani Devi, A.S.I., Rajpal Ram and the materials exhibits adduced during the course of inquiry proceeding, found the allegations against the petitioner established. He also observed that despite repeated time being granted to submit his final written statement of defence, the petitioner had not furnished his written statement of defence and simply sought adjournment in the departmental proceeding. Therefore, the allegations of misconduct were found to be established against the petitioner.;