- (1.) Petitioner being aggrieved with the orders dated 29.6.2010 and 14.12.2010 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, has approached this Court. The facts which has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner is that petitioner being a Constable, had been proceeded departmentally for a charge that he had started friendship with the daughter of one Binod Yadav aged about 19 years only in order to create faith upon the family and the said girl so that, he may solemnize marriage with the girl. After knowing this fact, her parents fixed the marriage of their girl Sudha Kumari with other person. The date of marriage was fixed with the intervention of the members of the society on 4.7.2009 in Jagarnath Mandir. When the marriage was about to be solemnized, the petitioner came and started disturbing the process of marriage and thereafter, the marriage could not be solemnized. Hence, the petitioner on the basis of this charge had been directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry and recorded the statement of the witnesses, thereafter, the finding has been given that the charge has been found to be proved against the petitioner. After being accepted the same by the disciplinary authority, order of dismissal has been affirmed by the appellate authority.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings given by the Inquiry Officer is altogether different to that of the charge framed against the petitioner, because the finding given by the Inquiry Officer is with respect to solemnizing second marriage which is contrary to the charge as framed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Inquiry Officer is not supposed to be deviated from the charge. The order of dismissal since is based on the basis of the said findings, is not in accordance with law.
(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner being the member of the said disciplined police force is very serious. Petitioner has misused official position as he has created disturbance in the marriage of said Sudha Kumari due to which the image of police has destroyed in the society. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that the findings given by the Inquiry Officer is not different to the charge leveled against him rather the original charge which has created disturbance and breakdown of marriage of Sudha Kumari with the other person has been found to be proved. In course of inquiry it was found that the petitioner was already married. Disturbing the solemnization of marriage of said Sudha Kumari by the petitioner shows his criminal intention. It has further been submitted that since there is reasoned facts, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappraise the evidence and cannot disturb the facts and finding given by the disciplinary authority.;