PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23.06.2010 passed by Superintendent of Police (Railway) Dhanbad in departmental proceeding no.12 of 2002 pertaining to compulsory retirement by way of punishment order dated 28.07.2003 and for direction to respondents for reinstatement in services.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that initially the petitioner was appointed as a constable in the year 1986 in the district of Chapra where he continued in services till 1998 thereafter, he was posted in the Government Railway Police Station Dhanbad. On the basis of an allegation dated 16.03.2002 that the petitioner was in drunken state in the midnight and created chaos and with sword in hand chased Hawaldar Rajendra Ram and a constable Sri Shiv Nandan in the drunken state the petitioner also went to the resident of the Superintendent of Police, Railway and abused the senior police officials. In view of the said incident, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner bearing nos.12 of 2002 and 13 of 2002 and charges were framed against the petitioner and show cause was issued to the petitioner. The matter was inquired and the inquiry officer submitted a enquiry report both in departmental proceeding holding the charges to be true. The petitioner filed a detailed show cause, the Superintendent of Police, Railway Dhanbad without considering the show cause and passed an order of dismissal dated 28.07.2003 vide Annexure -4 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no.3 who modified the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement vide order dated 02.07.2004 vide Annexure -5 to the writ application. The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority the petitioner challenged in W.P.(S) No.4115 of 2004 and this Court vide order dated 23.02.2010 passed a detailed order quashing the impugned orders passed by disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. This Court after quashing the impugned order made an observation in para 10 which is as under: - "10. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of punishment is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned disciplinary authority of the petitioner to pass a fresh order on the basis of the findings in the inquiry report after supplying a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and obtaining the petitioner's explanation as to why the major punishment contemplated if any, should not be imposed upon him. The disciplinary authority shall also consider the petitioner's contention that even in the light of the findings recorded in the inquiry report which suggest at best that only one of the charges is proved, such charge, in itself, does not invite any major punishment. In this regard, the disciplinary authority shall also be guided by the provisions of Rule 826 of the Police Manual. The decision as per the above direction should be taken by the concerned disciplinary authority of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, it is not concluded within the period stipulated above, it shall be deemed that the petitioner's service has not been terminated and he shall be entitled for his reinstatement." After disposal of the writ application, the disciplinary authority asked for show cause reply and the petitioner has filed a detailed show cause reply but the disciplinary authority passed an order of compulsory retirement dated 23.06.2010 .
(3.) Dr. S. N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the respondent authorities have not considered the observations and direction of paragraph 10 of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.4115 of 2004 and the impugned order is only repetition of the earlier order passed by disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent authorities have not considered for supplying the inquiry report before obtaining petitioner's explanation for passing impugned order and the disciplinary authority have not taken into consideration that one proved charge could not invite any major punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent authorities have not considered Rule 826 of the Police Manual before passing the impugned order therefore, the impugned order has been passed in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.;