PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing of the common orders dated 31.10.2004 issued by the respondent no.5, pertaining to punishment of compulsory retirement from services, and for quashing the common orders dated 08.10.2005 issued by the respondent no.4 (appellate authority), affirming the order of the disciplinary authority, and for direction to the respondents forthwith reinstate the petitioners in services and for direction upon them to release all consequential benefits along with interest.
(2.) The facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nut shell, is that the petitioners were deputed on patrolling duty in a passenger train in between Tata and Barkakana on 06.06.2001. The petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 joined their services on 06.07.1979, 27.02.1989, 11.07.1985 and 01.12.1988 respectively. It has been stated in the writ application that when the train reached near Harubera Station in night, all of a sudden the train was stopped. When the petitioners came down from the train to enquire into the matter about 100 to 150 persons surrounded these four police personnel. On being surrounded, one of the petitioners being petitioner no.1 fired from his service rifle after taking position. In retaliation, the extremists started fire upon them and even assaulted from the butt of the rifle and stabbed them. Thereafter, the extremists directed the railway driver to come out from the engine and stand on some distance from the engine, till they have again been instructed to come to engine. On the said night, the extremists took away the rifles from these petitioners and after assaulting they fled away. After the incident, the petitioners were hospitalized for some days. In pursuance to the said incident on 07.06.2001, a police case being Rail P.S. Muri No.07/2001 under Section 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code and 17 of C.L.A. Act has been instituted. The Superintendent of Police, Railway filed his supervision note indicating that the incident has taken place, is known for the extremists activities. After the supervision note of the S.P., ultimately the criminal case has been closed by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Railway dated 31.08.2003 on the ground that there is no possibility of any cause, which can help in probing into the investigation, as evident from Annexure -2 to the writ application. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners on 07.08.2001 directing them to reply with respect to the factum of incident relating to dereliction of Government duty. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioners submitted their replies denying the whole incident. Thereafter, memo of charges were issued against the petitioners under the signature of respondent no.5 alleging dereliction of duty and inability of police personnel and directed the petitioners for submission of reply. The petitioners were served with second show cause notice. The petitioners requested for providing some time to file reply for the second show cause notice. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 31.10.2004 has been pleased to pass order of compulsory retirement. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioners preferred appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ranchi against the order dated 31.10.2004 and vide order dated 08.10.2005, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ranchi affirmed the order of punishment of compulsory retirement. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.
(3.) Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners during course of hearing has strenuously urged that the impugned orders are fit to be set aside on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement have been imposed upon the petitioners by the respondents are illegal and arbitrary because the findings are contrary to the enquiry report being cryptic and perfunctory one and no definite or clinching evidence has come against the petitioners to award such punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the punishment imposed on the petitioners is a major punishment, which is not commensurate with the offence, if any committed by them, because of the reason that if any offence has been committed by the petitioners the other persons who have been empowered for investigating the case, they should have been given punishment for the failure of not arresting the extremists. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that disciplinary authority have not considered the unimpeachable services of the petitioners of about 16 -17 years and by virtue of the impugned order of punishment, the petitioners have been put to starvation. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that non -supply of the enquiry report is another infirmity, which has caused prejudice to the petitioners because the supply of enquiry report is a sine qua non for fair of the full -fledged disciplinary proceeding. In the instant case, due to non supply of the enquiry report, disciplinary proceeding has been vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that co -delinquent - Mr. Shiv Lakhan Pandey, who had initially inflicted lesser punishment of reversion to the lower post from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, has been modified by the appellate authority vide order dated 25.06.2011 (Annexure -19) restricting the period of reversion of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to the same benefit as has been extended to the co -delinquent, since the petitioners have been given compulsory retirement, they have been subjected to hostile discrimination and therefore, they are entitled to parity of treatment as per the settled principles of law.;