- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.07.2010 passed in Departmental Proceeding No.45/2008 by the Respondent No. 3-Superintendent of Police, Garhwa pertaining to dismissal from services and for quashing of the order dated 21.05.2011 passed by the appellate authority, rejecting the appeal against the dismissal order and also for proper directions commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The factual matrix, as has been delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner initially joined in the services of police since December 31, 2005 as police 790 in Garhwa Police Force, and after joining without any unblemished service career he continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superior authority. Unfortunately, the petitioner was suspended from services vide memo dated 22.12.2007 issued by the S.P. Garhwa on the allegations that the petitioner leaks information regarding police movements and having relation with the extremists outfit. In this regard, respondent No.5, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Garhwa was asked to submit report against the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 05.01.2008 to the said charges. The respondent No.5, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Garhwa vide memo dated 24.05.2011 submitted his report before the respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Garhwa stating therein that one Sharad Kumar, a Central Reserve Police Force personnel on 10-12-2007 at about 4.30 p.m. informed the respondent No.5 that he saw a District Police Personnel was leaking information regarding the movement of the Superintendent of Police on mobile phone but he did not know the name of the police personnel. The respondent No.5 thereafter, asked the petitioner to show his mobile phone. The petitioner told him that there is no balance in his mobile, therefore, he borrowed mobile phone from his friend and made call to his uncle Suman Singh. In the report, as per the print out of the call made by the mobile, which is one of the active extremists Ajay, one call was made to the petitioner on 09.12.2007 and two calls made to Suman Singh (uncle of the petitioner) on 10.12.2007. On these allegations, apart from the other, respondent No.5 recommended for strict disciplinary action against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has been served with the memo of charges issued by respondent No. 3, S.P. Garhwa and the names of the witnesses were along with the evidences. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply before the respondent No. 5 to the alleged charges but the petitioner was held guilty of the charges by the Enquiry/Conducting Officer in the Departmental Proceeding bearing No. 45 of 2008 with appreciating and acknowledging the defence taken by the petitioner with ulterior motive to punish him. Thereafter, the petitioner was served show cause against the dismissal from services vide memo dated 04.06.2010 and petitioner thereafter in pursuance to the show cause dated 04.06.2010 submitted his detailed clarification pleading not guilty by submitting therein all his defence, which were sufficient to prove the innocence of the petitioner and also requested S.P. Garhwa to examine the material witnesses. But, the petitioner has not been supplied with relevant documents which he has requested vide letter dated 11.08.2008. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner has been terminated vide order dated 30.07.2010, as per Annexure-9 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 21.05.2011, vide Annexure-11 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 30.07.2010 and confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 21-05-2011, left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit, it has been inter alia stated that the petitioner was suspended on the ground of leaking information of the movement of police force having his relation to the extremists/naxalites and in enquiry by the police authority, Sub-Divisional Police Officer the charge against him found proved and established as true that he used mobile phone for giving information to his relation and through his relation to veteran extremists/naxalites finding him guilty of the charges were framed and memo of charge was served to him. The Annexures-1, 2 and 3 of writ petition became the subject of departmental proceeding. It has further been submitted that the departmental proceeding has been fairly conducted and proceeded giving all possible opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and found well proved. The petitioner failed to satisfy the authority regarding his innocence as the materials and facts in evidence are found true in support of allegation/charge against the petitioner, has been terminated from services by serving the order of dismissal. The respondents have not committed error in deciding the departmental proceeding nor have violated the Articles 14, 16 or 21 of the Constitution of India nor the same is against the principle of natural justice.;