- (1.) By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by part of order no. 322/2004 bearing Memo no. 571 dated 25th February, 2004, Annexure5, by which though he was reinstated in service, but the respondent no. 5, Superintendent of Police, Palamau has held that his services could be counted w.e.f. 21st February, 2004 only and he would not be entitled to back wages. The petitioner has consequently made a prayer for directing the respondent to count the entire period of service from the initial date of appointment as Constable on 2nd May, 1988 and to pay full salary and allowances for the said period.
(3.) The chain of facts leading to the issuance of the order impugned are as follows: (i) Petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 2nd May, 1988. He was placed under suspension on 11th November, 1989 and also departmentally proceeded for the charges on the ground that the petitioner faced criminal prosecution in Panki P.S. Case No. 12/84 and Panki P.S. Case No. 14/85 at the time of his appointment. The disciplinary inquiry led to his dismissal from service by an order dated 11th February, 1993. (ii) Petitioner preferred an appeal and thereafter also approached the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C NO. 3966 of 1993(R). Vide judgment dated 4th April, 1994, Annexure1, the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the petitioner's appeal within the stipulated period. Petitioner's appeal was rejected on 3rd January, 1994. He challenged the order of dismissal and appellate order in C.W.J.C no. 1429 of 1994(R), which was quashed by Patna High Court vide judgment dated 10th January, 1995, Annexure2 on the grounds that the inquiry report had not been furnished to him which amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence. Liberty was granted to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after serving the copy of inquiry report upon the petitioner and also giving him opportunity to represent. It was also observed that the petitioner would be reinstated and put under suspension. The Superintendent of Police was directed to conduct the inquiry from the stage of furnishing of the inquiry report and only upon any decision in his favour, the Superintendent of Police would decide the entitlement of the petitioner to service benefits from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. It was also observed that the petitioner's reinstatement after quashing of the order of dismissal on the grounds on nonsupply of the inquiry report should be treated as reinstatement for the purpose of holding fresh inquiry and no more. The petitioner was reinstated on 7th April, 1995 and kept under suspension and after service of inquiry report and his explanation he was again dismissed from service vide order dated 27th April, 1996. (iii) He once again preferred an appeal which was also rejected on 11th October, 1996 and his memorial was also rejected by Revisional Authority on 20th January, 1998. The petitioner again approached the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C no. 2346 of 1998(R) challenging the aforesaid orders passed in second round after earlier dismissal was quashed in C.W.J.C no. 1429 of 1994(R) The writ petition was decided by learned Singe Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 14th July, 2003 quashing the order of dismissal and remanding the matter for passing fresh order, Annexure3. The opinion of learned Single Judge for quashing the order of dismissal as highly disproportionate recorded at pars 6 and 7 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder : Paras 6: The aforesaid contentions of the State Respondents must be rejected. Firstly, these reasonings have not been mentioned in the chargesheet. All that the chargesheet speaks of are reference to two cases, namely, Panki P.S. Case No. 12/84 and Panki P.S. Case No. 14/85 and goes on to state that in these two cases since chargesheets had been filed, therefore, the same established that the petitioner was a man of criminal nature. So far as the allegation of non filling up the columns 7 and 8 is concerned, it appears that this allegation came for the first time through Annexure14 i.e. at the time when the appeal was rejected. This charge was not included in the chargesheet nor was it taken note at the time of passing of the first order of dismissal i.e. Annexure12. Moreover, the petitioner in his memo of appeal had given detailed explanation as to why these columns could not be filled up. These explanations are to be found at paragraph5 of the memo of appeal but this has not been taken note of by the appellate authority. In short, therefore, The Respondents appear to have proceeded to punish the petitioner on charges which have been added through orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. While the chargesheet on the one hand merely says that for submission of chargesheet in two criminal cases, the petitioner was proved to be a person of criminal nature, the appellate order (Annexure14), on the other, includes a fresh charge to the effect that by not filling up columns 7 and 8 and leaving them blank, the petitioner suppressed informations. Moreover, the explanation given by the petitioner as stated above, has not been adequately dealt with by any of the respondents. 7. For the reasons stated, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate. Consequently, the order of dismissal is hereby set aside and the mater is remanded to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.";