- (1.) THE appellant was dismissed from the post of Hawildar vide order, contained in Memo No. 210, Palamau dated 12th April, 2003, issued by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police -VIII, Palamau, on the ground that he had taken liquor and misbehaved with his superiors. The appeal, preferred by him, was also dismissed by order dated 20th December, 2003, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi. Thereafter, the memorial preferred by the appellant was rejected by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 16th April, 2005, which was communicated to the appellant on 16th June, 2005 along with the letter dated 31st January, 2005, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Budget), Jharkhand, Ranchi to the Home Secretary, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby, it was also informed that the petitioner having taken in service on contract basis for a period of three years, his services are not extended.
(2.) LEARNED single Judge refused to interfere with the order of dismissal on the ground that the appellant misbehaved with the higher authority in a drunken condition. The said order dated 9th September, 2005, passed in WP(S) No. 4179 of 2005 has been challenged on the ground that the order of dismissal was passed in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, without initiating any departmental proceeding and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. On 16th June, 2006 counsel for the State was allowed four weeks time to file affidavit and state whether a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant; whether charge was issued, enquiry officer was appointed, enquiry report was submitted and copy of it was provided to the appellant or not. The respondents in their affidavit while stated that a show -cause notice was issued on the appellant, accepted that no departmental proceeding was initiated and without any finding by any authority and without following the procedure of a proceeding for inflicting major punishment, the impugned order of dismissal was passed by the Commandant, JAP -8, Palamau on 12th April, 2003.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State submitted that in reply to the show -cause notice the petitioner has accepted that he had taken liquor. But from the show -cause reply and the explanation, sought for, as contained in Annexure 4, it appears that the appellant while denied the charge that he had misbehaved with the superior, has explained the situation in which he had taken Rum. However, he had not stated that he had taken such Rum during the duty hours and, in fact, neither any finding has been given by the respondents that the appellant had taken liquor during the duty hours nor there is any finding that the appellant had misbehaved with any individual.;