Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 30.10.2001, passed by the Respondent No. 4, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Giridih in the Departmental Proceeding No. 79 of 1998 pertaining to punishment of placement in the initial pay scale, payable to the newly recruited constables with a further direction that the petitioner will not be entitled for any amount, save and except, what he has been paid during the period of suspension and for quashing the order dated 04.08.2004, passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Area, Hazaribagh, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and for a direction to the respondents to pay all consequential service benefits.
(2.) The brief facts, as emanated from the writ application, is that while the petitioner was continuing as a Constable, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 13.11.1998 by the then Superintendent of Police, Giridih on the allegation that on 06.10.1998, at 17:15 hours, the petitioner in presence of other Police Officer, literate constables and Chaukidars, misbehaved with the then Officer-in-Charge, showing indiscipline by removing his own sandals from his legs and threatened the Officer-in-Charge even with a piece of brick, as evident from the memo of charges (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. During enquiry, the witnesses were examined but the said enquiry was conducted without any information to the petitioner of the date fixed for the enquiry but, when the Sub-Inspector Dharamdeo Paswan is said to have been examined in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was noticed and was present in the proceeding. However, the deposition of the said Dharmdeo Paswan was not recorded in presence of the petitioner but his statement was recorded, not by the Enquiry Officer, but by the Literate Constable at some other place and not at the assigned place of enquiry i.e. the Policeline, Giridih and the petitioner was not given chance even to cross-examine the said witnesses. It has further been asserted in the writ application that the other witnesses like Literate Constable, Shyam Nandan Kishore and the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Dindayal Ram were examined on 12.08.2000 in presence of the petitioner but their statements was recorded by the Literate Constable of the enquiry officer and not by the enquiry officer himself. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation and the petitioner has requested the enquiry officer for supply of relevant papers as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence, denying the allegations. In the written explanation, the petitioner stated that he was granted leave by the Dy. S.P., Head Quarter for 5 days, as because the petitioner was required to attend the funeral ceremony of the sad demise of his brother-in-law (Bahnoi), who died prematurely at early age of 35 years only but on the alleged date i.e. 16.10.1998, when the petitioner asked for formal permission from the then Officer-in-Charge, he lost his temper and manufactured a different story with a view to victimise the petitioner as per Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the disciplinary authority, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, as evident from Annexure-7. The copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Giridih by which the petitioner was asked to submit his written statement in defence and the petitioner submitted his defence and thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Giridih without appreciating the written statement, punished the petitioner by placing him in the initial pay-scale of the newly recruited Constable in the departmental proceeding No. 79 of 1998 vide Annexure-12 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribagh. Since the said appeal was not disposed of, the petitioner filed W.P. (S) No. 5462 of 2004, which was disposed of on 08.10.2004. In pursuance to the order dated 08.10.2004, the petitioner submitted representation before the Respondent No. 4 along with the copy of the order dated 08.10.2004, passed in W.P. (S) No. 5462 of 2004. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.08.2004 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dated 30.10.2001 and the order of the appellate authority, dated 04.08.2004, the petitioner left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing, has vehemently submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by the disciplinary authority without following the principles of natural justice and during course of enquiry, three witnesses were examined behind the back of the petitioner by the enquiry officer and the notices for the dates of enquiry was not served upon the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of punishment, passed by the disciplinary authority being confirmed by the appellate authority is too harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Rule 824 of the Police Manual does not envisage the impugned order of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the averments made in paragraph 9, paragraph 10, paragraph 17 and paragraph 27 onwards stands admitted in view of non-denial of the assertions made therein. So far as on the question of quantum of punishment, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) in the case of State Bank of Mysore & Others v. M.C. Krishnappa reported in (2011) 7 SCC 325 and (ii) in the case of S.R. Tewari v. Union of India & Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 ;