- (1.) I.A. No. 6525 of 2015 1. The instant Interlocutory application has been filed for addition of a prayer, as mentioned in para 3 of this application, in prayer portion of the writ petition, in view of the dismissal of departmental during pendency of this writ application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of this writ application, the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed vide memo no. 44 dated 20.01.2010, which is necessary to be brought on record for just adjudication of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the proposed amendment will not change the nature and character of the case and the same is formal in nature. 3. Learned counsel for the State raised serious objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. In view of the fact that the amendment sought for is formal in nature and is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, the interlocutory application seeking amendment, by way of addition in prayer portion, is allowed. 5. I.A. No. 6525 of 2015 is allowed. W.P. (S) No. 2995 of 2009 In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing of memo dated 04.10.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Palamau pertaining to infliction of punishment of withholding of one annual increment, equivalent to two black marks, without cumulative effect as well as restrictions of payment of only subsistence allowance during the suspension period and for quashing of appellate order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the D.I.G of Police, Palamau and further for payment of arrears of salary as well as other consequential benefits.
(2.) The factual matrix, as disclosed in the writ application, in brief, is that the petitioner while continuing his services as A.S.I. of Police in Town P.S., Daltonganj, Palamau, one Sunil Kumar Gupta made a complaint alleging that when he was carrying two tins of Ghee for retail selling to Daltonganj on Chhamuhan Chowk, a driver sitting in white colour Police Jeep stopped him a put a demand of Rs. 5000/- and later on, he put a demand of Rs. 1500/- and taken the said Ghee in his custody and as such the complainant made a request to the officer-incharge of Town Police Station for return of his Ghee. In pursuance to the said complaint, the petitioner was put under suspension and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After receipt of memo of charge, the petitioner submitted his reply requesting to revoke his suspension and for exonerating the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the matter was enquired into by the enquiry officer, who submitted his report exonerating the petitioner from the charges levelled against him, but the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the enquiry report imposed the impugned punishment vide memo dated 04.10.2005. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2010 by the appellate authority-D.I.G of Police, Palamau.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment dated 04.10.2005 and order passed by appellate authority dated 20.01.2010, the petitioner left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.;