PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing impugned order dated 12.09.2014 whereby punishment of forfeiture of increment for 6 months has been imposed upon the petitioner and also for quashing order dated 11.02.2015, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and further prayed for full salary from the date of punishment with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in brief, is that petitioner while serving as constable in Jharkhand Armed Police, Palamu, it is alleged that one Ashish Dubey, working as writer-constable, demanded illegal benefits, which the petitioner refused, hence, Mr. Ashish Dubey threatened him of dire consequences. It is further stated that Mr. Ashish Dubey got a report prepared signed by the Company Commander, when he was in drunken condition, against the petitioner and two other Jawans mentioning therein that they were trying to flout the discipline of force and were instigating Jawans by using offensive language. Basing on these charges, enquiry officer inquired into the matter and found the charges proved against the petitioner, accordingly, the Commandant (Respondent No. 4) awarded punishment of forfeiture of increment for 6 months vide order dated 12.09.2014, which was challenged in appeal, that was rejected vide order 11.02.2015.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Company Commander, who put his signature on the alleged report, has not supported the allegation levelled against the petitioner. On being questioned by the petitioner, he only replied that the petitioner used to support the Jawans, so he gave his name, which clearly indicates that he has sent a false report against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that even the independent witness in his statement has specifically stated that he knows the petitioner for the last one year and no instigating word has been spoken by this petitioner and he never flouted discipline. It has further been stated no witness has stated against the petitioner but the Enquiry Officer has given his biased opinion finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order has been passed against the spirit of Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual.;