Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 22.08.2011, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from services and for quashing appellate order dated 22.12.2011 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in IRB at Chatra at 02.07.2008 and he was sent for training for 11 months at Border Security Force, Punjab. After completion of said training, in 2009, the petitioner joined in Khelgaon, Ranchi and thereafter in August, 2010, he was sent for training in Tripura. It has been averred that during training at Tripura 17.08.2010 on getting news about the serious illness of his brother, the petitioner left the training camp without sanction of leave to attend his brother at Rajeshwari Hospital at Patna, as it has been said by the Instructor of Training Camp that there is no chance of sanction of leave. It has further been averred that during treatment his brother died on 27.09.2010 and after doing last rituals he reported his duty on 13.10.2010 with a request to sanction leave for the period of absence on the ground of death of his brother. Thereafter, vide office order no. 917/2010 the petitioner was placed under suspension and charge was framed against the petitioner on the allegation of absence of 57 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in course of enquiry the petitioner also produced the medical documents and even the death certificate of his brother in support of the stand taken in his explanation for the period of alleged absence but that has not been taken into consideration sympathetically and on the basis enquiry report, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services has been imposed upon the petitioner, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal, but it resulted into same fate.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that before imposition of impugned punishment, the enquiry report has not been served upon the petitioner and furthermore no second show cause has been served upon the petitioner, which vitiates the entire proceeding. Besides that, the impugned punishment is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct in the facts and circumstances of the case. Under the circumstances, the disciplinary authority is not justified in passing the order of dismissal from services in exercise of his powers conferred under Rule 668(ka) of the Police Manual.;