Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the District Order No. 2240 of 2001 issued under Memo No. 2167 dated 27.09.2001 passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner had been dismissed from service. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 1972 dated 09.09.2003 by which the respondent No. 2 had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his order of dismissal.
(2.) ON or about 31.10.1997, the petitioner was appointed on the post of constable in the District Police Force, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. Sometimes, in August 2000, the petitioner was sent for training for a period of 9 months at Chaibasa. On the complaint made by the Subedar Major (Samadeshak) to the Police Training Centre, Chaibasa against the petitioner and one Bhola Rai, the respondent No. 3 passed an order directing the suspension of the petitioner and Bhola Rai and for issuance of charge -sheet against them. In terms of District Order No. 1256 of 2001 dated 22.05.2001, the petitioner was put under suspension and thereafter by virtue of office order as contained in Memo No. 1293 dated 28.05.2001, a charge -sheet was submitted upon the petitioner by which the charges which were levelled against him were as follows: "I. On 18.05.2001 at 4 P.M. after training was over, the petitioner is alleged to have shown indisciplined behaviour by going out on bare foot and in civil dress. II. He used to press 'Samadeshak' (Subedar) to grant leave to the Police personnel. III. Due to his alleged disturbance, the officials imparting training as well as the Police persons were affected due to which he was cautioned." An explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 05.06.2001 denying the charges levelled against him. In the inquiry which was conducted by the Sub -Divisional Police Officer, Chakradharpur, an adverse finding was recorded and the Inquiry Officer submitted the report before the respondent No. 3. A second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show -cause as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from the service on the basis of charge Nos. 2 & 3 to which the petitioner gave a reply and thereafter in terms of the order as contained in Memo No. 2167 dated 27.09.2001 issued by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner was dismissed from service. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner, but in terms of the order contained in Memo No. 1972 dated 09.09.2003, respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal.
(3.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Rakhi Rani, learned J.C. to Sr. S. C. II.;