- (1.) Petitioner being aggrieved with the orders dated 3.2.2011, 6.8.2011 and 5.12.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority by which he had been dismissed from service, has approached this Court.
(2.) It has been argued on behalf of petitioner that he was appointed on 20.3.2010 as Constable in terms of an advertisement and after following procedure of law. Subsequently, on the basis of one anonymous complaint regarding genuineness of certificate of Class seven of the petitioner, internal inquiry had been conducted by Assistant Commandant cum Inquiry Officer, Jharkhand Armed Police Force, Bokaro who had submitted his report on 9.9.2010, in which however, he had found that the certificate of Class seven produced by the petitioner is doubtful.
(3.) It has further been submitted that since petitioner was appointed against a permanent post in terms of an advertisement and as such, only on the basis of one internal inquiry the services of the petitioner cannot be taken away that too without following due procedure of law i.e. without initiating a regular departmental inquiry. It has further been submitted that the order has been passed by the disciplinary authority in exercise of power conferred under Rule 668(a) of Police Manual which itself suggests that there is no requirement of initiating departmental proceeding as contained in Rule 828(b) of Police Manual. It has further been submitted that since there is an allegation of commission of forgery as such, a regular departmental proceeding is required to be initiated by the authorities concerned before passing the major punishment of dismissal from service.;