Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, who was serving as a Constable under Jharkhand Armed Police No. IV was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry bearing No. 3/2011 vide Charge -sheet dated 27th March, 2011 issued by Commandant, J.A.P -IV with the allegation that during his posting at Camp -Ked Picket Barwadih Police Station, Latehar under C -Company on 2nd March, 2011 at 2.30 P.M. during day time he entered into the house of a local villager and abused Poonam Devi wife of Anil Saw and also misbehaved with her. This incidence was reported by the victim Poonam Devi, whereupon the departmental action has been recommended. His action depicted lack of indiscipline, dereliction in duty and negligence which has lowered down the image of the police. He was placed under suspension on 24th March, 2011 vide Annexure -1 and thereafter the inquiry proceeded. The petitioner faced the inquiry but refused to cross -examine the prosecution witnesses. Four witnesses were examined, namely, Poonam Devi P.W. 1; Anil Saw her husband P.W.2; Officer in Charge Birendra Kumar Ram P.W.3 and Sub Inspector Joham Mundu P.W. 4. Based upon the findings of guilt on the inquiry report furnished by Inquiry Officer, Ramdeo Prasad Inspector vide Annexure -F to the counter affidavit, the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant J.A.P -IV has passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 30th September, 2011, Annexure -3 after due issuance of second show cause notice on 30th August, 2011, to which he did not submit his reply. The dismissal order is under challenge in the present writ application as also the order passed in appeal by Inspector General of Police, Ranchi dated 9th November, 2012, Annexure -5 to the writ petition. The appellate authority though has discussed the merit of the petitioner's case but has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that there is no previous allegation of such misconduct against the petitioner and the entire allegation made by Poonam Devi are not supported during the course of inquiry as would be evident from the inquiry report itself. However, despite the fact that the findings are not based upon any sustainable material evidence, the disciplinary authority has imposed the maximum punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, which is highly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The Appellate Authority also has not considered this aspect of the matter and confirmed the order in appeal while rejecting the same also on the ground of delay.;