Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to A.G. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.3.2011 as contained in Memo No. 589 passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby and whereunder an order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner has been passed. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 29.10.2011 as contained in Memo No. 1718 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 14.3.2011 has been rejected. A prayer has also been made to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Hawaldar and pay him to salary since 14.3.2011 till date.
(2.) The petitioner was working in the Police Department on the post of Hawaldar. The petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge as contained in Memo No. 2992 dated 29.11.2010 wherein allegation was that the petitioner on 12.11.2010 at 7.30 p.m. without any information had absented from duty after taking alcohol and lying on the road in an unconscious state. The petitioner submits that the explanation to the memorandum of the charges was submitted by him but having not been satisfied a departmental proceeding was initiated by the petitioner in which the inquiry officer had found proved the charges levelled against the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, an order was passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Memo No. 589 dated 14.3.2011 in which the petitioner was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement. He had preferred appeal against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed on 29.10.2010 by the respondent No. 2, which led the petitioner to prefer the present writ application.
(3.) It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner that the medical report pursuant to the examination of the petitioner did not find, the petitioner in an alcoholic state. It has further been submitted that inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority took into consideration certain extraneous matter which were not mentioned in the charge. It has therefore been stated that since the inquiry proceeding was conducted beyond the purview of the charges issued to the petitioner, the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated and the same should be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual which precludes the disciplinary authority from taking into consideration the previous record of service of the officer concerned, if it is not already included in the charge of the proceeding and it shall not be taken into account for determining the quantum the punishment.;