Pramath Patnaik, J. - - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 5) in Departmental Proceeding No. 40 of 2005, as contained in memo no. 2024 dated 30.4.2008, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of dismissal from service.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1994 in the District Police, Dumka and after working there till 2002, he was transferred to Chaibasa. It has been averred that while the petitioner was posted in the Manoharpur Police Station as a Reserve Guard, it was alleged that on 26.03.2005, he along with Constable No. 778 Sunil Kumar forcibly took Chinki @ Puja (15 years) and Takli Kumari (16 years) to Adarsh Middle School where Takli Kumari after biting the petitioner rescued herself and informed the villagers and the villagers caught Constable No. 778 Sunil Kumar in attempting to commit rape whereas the petitioner fled away. Accordingly, Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2005 2 was instituted under Sections 366/376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and both the constables were taken into custody. It has been submitted that on the same allegation a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner by serving him charge sheet vide memo no. 1532 dated 28.4.2005. It has been further averred that in the said criminal case the victim girls, their guardians and other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and accordingly the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge I, Chaibasa vide its judgment and order dated 27.7.2005 passed in S.T. No. 146 of 2005 acquitted the petitioner from the charges. It has been further submitted that for the same charges and similar facts, departmental proceeding no. 40 of 2005 was initiated, in which the Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in illegal manner in as much as he himself acted as the Presenting Officer and asked leading question from the petitioner and no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself nor the petitioner was allowed to produce his witnesses. In the said departmental proceeding the victim girl also not stated anything against the petitioner and her father also clearly stated that her daughter said hat Sipahiji was not involved in the occurrence. It has been further stated that the petitioner on 24.4.2006 submitted his final explanation categorically stating the circumstances from which it would be proved that the petitioner is not guilty of charges levelled against him and accordingly requested the authority to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him since he has not committed any misconduct, but the Enquiry Officer without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner submitted his enquiry report on 31.01.2008 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. It has been further averred that the Disciplinary Authority relying upon the enquiry report issued order vide memo no. 2024 dated 30.4.2008, whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. It has been further stated in the writ application that being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed Appeal dated 9.7.2008 before the Appellate Authority contending that the order of dismissal has been passed in violation of Rule 825 of the 3 Police Manual since Sri Sudhir Kumar Jha was Additional Superintendent of Police and after transfer of Superannuated of Police, Chaibasa he was holding the post of the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner further contended that since he was acquitted in the criminal case and as such awarding punishment of dismissal for the same set of charge is not justified and accordingly requested for setting aside the order of dismissal and exonerating him from the charges levelled against him. It has been stated that the appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner vide its order contained in memo no. 570 dated 18.6.2009 without appreciating the facts, contention and law raised by the petitioner. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Heard Mr. (Dr.) S. N. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned J.C. to A.A.G. for the respondents-State.;