Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned Senior S.C.I. for the Respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner in the present writ application has challenged the order contained in memo No. 1062 dated 29.3.2006 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gumla (respondent No. 4) in departmental proceeding No. 03 of 2006 by dint of which the petitioner was discharged from service. The petitioner has also made challenge to the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi (respondent No. 3), whereby he being the appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29.3.2006. The petitioner was appointed on 1.5.1991 as driver constable and in course of his employment he was lastly transferred to Gumla in 1999. On 11.12.2005, the petitioner along with two other constables were deputed to escort a prisoner, namely, Pawan Kumar Gupta from Gumla Jail to Sadar Hospital, Gumla for specialized treatment. The accused however, escaped from the clutches of the escort party for which an F.I.R. was also instituted on 11.12.2005. Since the petitioner was one of the members of the escort party, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him which was numbered as Departmental Proceeding No. 3 of 2005. Charge was framed against the petitioner and in course of enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner were found true and resultantly vide order as contained in memo No. 1062 dated 29.3.2006 passed by the respondent No. 4., the petitioner was discharged from his service. An appeal followed, which also resulted in dismissal vide order dated 25.8.2006 issued by the respondent No. 3.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in enquiry proceeding, the enquiry officer has not considered the defence of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was never given an opportunity to adduce evidence and whatever evidences were relied upon by the enquiry officer were not of eye witnesses and in such circumstances, the enquiry report itself is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that a clear picture would have come out, had the fugitive, namely, Pawan Kumar Gupta examined in course of enquiry. It has been further submitted that two other persons, who were deputed to escort the said accused/prisoner, had left and it was only the petitioner from whose custody the criminal had fled and whatever charges have been levelled against the petitioner do not point to the negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner.;