PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter -alia prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 06.03.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent no.5) and the order dated 08.07.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent no.4) and also the order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the Revisional Authority pertaining to dismissal from the services and the petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that while the petitioner was posted at Dhanbad, charges were framed against him along with others and show cause was asked from him. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the same and the show cause reply was found unsatisfactory and the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. In the departmental proceeding, the matter was enquired into and the inquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges. On the basis of inquiry report, the disciplinary authority agreeing with findings of the inquiry officer has passed order of dismissal from services, which has been affirmed by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate as well as Revisional Authority and the petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra -ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Per -contra a counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 controverting the averments made in the writ applications. In the counter - affidavit, it has been inter alia submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad issued a letter dated 08.11.2011 whereunder on 22.09.2008 one Bansi Lal son of Late Bipal Sahu accused in R.C. 5 -(A) of 2005 A.H.D.R was being treated in PMCH Dhanbad and the petitioner alongwith others constable were deputed for security in PMCH. On 22.09.2008 the accused Bansi Lal got burn injury and on 23.09.2008 admitted to casual department PMCH and on 25.09.2008 the accused person was transferred to RIMS Ranchi. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad on 31.10.2008 at 11:30 inspected the ward of PMCH where accused persons were treated during the course of enquiry no security personnel was present, nor they were in uniform. Two security personnels had gone out and other two were lying in barrack. The statement of accused in custody also indicated that there was candles and matches in the prisoner ward because of which the incident to fire took place. The constable during the enquiry did not say truth. The prisoner wards where accused are treated and the police barrack are adjacent to each other and there was difference of just one wall. The constable deputed in security should have known about the incidents of fire but after the fire had engulfed, the security personnels came to learn about it and these shows that they were not on duty. It was also transpired that the petitioner and others were on the roof top, indicating that they were negligent in their duty and the catching fire of under trial was a suspicious circumstances. The departmental proceeding was subsequently started, not being satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner but during the course of inquiry the petitioner and others have been found guilty of charges. It is further been submitted that the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad agreed with the findings of the conducting officer after having considered the entire materials on record and found the petitioner guilty of charges and the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad found the act and conduct of petitioner and others as sufficient proof of undisciplined conduct and doubtful character and being incompetent police personnel. Hence, the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad passed an order asking for show cause from the petitioner on the proposed punishment and the petitioner submitted his show cause and the disciplinary authority after considering the show cause reply unsatisfactory passed dismissal order of the petitioner from services. Which has been affirmed by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authority.;