Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 31.3.2010 and 2.10.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority, respectively by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. Heard the parties and perused the document on record.
(2.) THE facts which has been argued on behalf of petitioner is that the petitioner being a member of Home Guard Vahini at Munger in terms of advertisement No. 1/1998 had made an application for being considered to be appointed as Constable, the petitioner was directed to appear vide letter of notice in this regard on 21.12.1999, and accordingly after being declared successful he was appointed as Constable on 1.3.2000, thereafter, he started discharging his duty. Later, on the basis of one anonymous complaint regarding commission of forgery committed by the petitioner, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated by serving memorandum of charge upon the petitioner.
(3.) PETITIONER accordingly had given due reply by putting his appearance before the Enquiry Officer by denying the entire allegation but the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved against him. But initially neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority has considered the entire aspect of the matter and reached to the conclusion that the forgery has been committed by the petitioner and accordingly, disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has not given any concrete finding regarding conclusive proof of the charge but the disciplinary authority has accepted the same and passed the major punishment of dismissal from service without any fraud on the part of the petitioner.;