Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order of punishment dated 19.8.2013, issued by respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been held guilty of the charges levelled against him and a punishment of one 'Black Spot' has been imposed upon him. It is also held that the period of suspension from 26.2.2013 to 03.3.2013 be treated as extra ordinary leave, but during the said period, petitioner is not entitled for payment save and except subsistence allowance already paid to him. Petitioner further prayed for quashing the appellate order as contained in memo No. 339, dated 01.2.2014, communicated to the petitioner vide memo No. 688, dated 26.2.2014, whereby the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) IT appears that at the relevant time, petitioner was working as officer -in -charge of Ramkanda police station, Garhwa. On 25.2.2013, the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa conducted an inspection in the aforesaid police station and found that the petitioner was absent from the headquarters without any permission. He further found that the petitioner went to Ranchi on S.R.E. vehicle, which was kept in the police station specially for patrolling in the extremist area. The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa further found that the petitioner not uptodated the records of the concerned police station in spite of directions given to him on several occasions. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa (respondent No. 2) issued charge sheet against the petitioner vide Memo No. 1082, dated 05.3.2013 (Annexure -5) and appointed Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garhwa as enquiry officer. It further appears that the petitioner has been suspended during the period of enquiry vide office order No. 236/2013, dated 26.02.2013. It also reveals from the record that petitioner filed a written statement before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer held an enquiry and during the said enquiry, the department produced oral and documentary evidences. It also appears from the enquiry report that during the enquiry, petitioner was given opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses. It also appears that in course of the enquiry, petitioner adduced evidence in his defence. It then appears that the enquiry officer, after conclusion of the enquiry, submitted a detailed enquiry report, wherein he concluded that the petitioner was partially guilty of the charges levelled against him. It appears that after receiving the aforesaid enquiry report, the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa(respondent No. 2) by the impugned order dated 19.08.2013, inflicted the aforesaid punishment against the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 19.08.2013, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau, but the said appeal was also dismissed on 01.2.2014. The aforesaid orders are impugned in this writ application.
(3.) IT is submitted by Sri Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that on the date of inspection, the petitioner had gone to Ranchi for deposing in a court on the basis of information received from the office of Superintendent of Police, Garhwa. Therefore, Superintendent of Police, Garhwa was knowing that the petitioner is not present in the police station on 25.2.2013. Under the said circumstance, the first charge against the petitioner that he left the headquarters without taking permission from the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa cannot be sustained. He further submits that on 25.2.2013, the petitioner had gone to Ranchi on a private vehicle, but he has been wrongly charged that he used S.R.E. vehicle for the said purpose. He further submits that on 24.2.2013, the S.R.E. vehicle of the police station had been sent to Daltonganj for minor repair work, therefore, on 25.2.2013, the vehicle in question was not available in the campus of police station. Under the said circumstance, the question of going to Ranchi on S..R.E. vehicle does not arise. Sri Singh, further submits that petitioner has already updated the records of the police station as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa. Under the said circumstance, the third charge levelled against him is also not made out. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to be exonerated from the charges levelled against him.;