Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/direction for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 16.09.2010 and the order/letter dated 23.09.2010, whereby the respondents intimated that the petitioners were dismissed from service and further for direction upon the respondents to re-instate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that, the petitioner No. 1 was posted as Uchcha Kachhapal-cum-Incharge Superintendent and petitioner No. 2 was Kacchapal at Divisional Jail Godda in the year 2006. It has been averred in the writ application that one under trial prisoner Karunakar Choudhary purportedly made complaint dated 26.2.06 allegedly stating therein that at about 11.15 PM on 26.2.06 petitioners along with 15 to 20 unknown persons came near the window and started dancing. It has been submitted that the alleged Jamadar threatened him for dire consequences, if any complaint is made by him regarding supply of food. It has been stated that the respondent Jail authorities issued show cause notice vide memo No. 143 and 144 dated 2.3.01 as to why departmental proceeding should not be initiated against the petitioners for violation of provision of jail manual. It has been further stated that both the petitioners filed their reply separately on 3.3.06 denying the charges. It has been further averred that on 26.2.06, petitioner No. 1 was on the round of jail, heard the sound of music and saw that musician were coming with whom Kachhapal Arbind Singh was also accompanied and on being asked Arbind Singh told that Kacchapal Bhanu Prasad Madav allow the musician to come inside, details of which mentioned in reply dated 3.3.06 and similarly the petitioner No. 2 also denied the charges and filed his reply as contained in reply dated 3.3.06, It has been further averred that the Chief Judicial Magistrate on receipt of complaint dated 27.2.06 about the occurrence dated 26.2.06, conducted an enquiry in which purportedly found that petitioners were responsible for entering Munna Tiwari, Chiku Choudhary Ansari and 15 to 20 persons inducing some musician but during enquiry thirteen persons have been examined and there are vital contradictions between the statement of these persons which have not supported the version of the informant. It has been further averred that subsequently an F.I.R. was also lodged by the authority on the basis of application dated 27.02.06 about the occurrence dated 26.2.06 made by Karunakar Choudhary under trial prisoner. It has been further stated that petitioners were suspended and departmental proceeding was initiated against them vide letter dated 11.4.2006. It has been further stated that the respondent served memo of charge upon the petitioner No. 1 to the following effect:- (i) On 26.2.06 at about 11 to 11.15 on direction of petitioner No. 1 Shiv Barat came inside the jail as reported by Kachhapal Bhanu Prasad Yadav. (ii) Petitioner No. 1 reported about the round duty but the same was not confirmed by gate register. (iii) In violation of the provision of jail manual being in charge Supdt. wrong instruction was given to the gate warder and accompanied Shiv Barat with Munna Tiwari and others inside the jail, due to this behaviour any occurrence might have taken place inside the jail. (iv) In relation to occurrence one application was filed by Karunakar Choudhary which was enquired by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in which charges were proved. It has been further stated that the respondent served memo of charge upon the petitioner No. 2 with following effects:- (i) On 26.2.06 at about 11.15 to 11.25 on direction of Yogendra Tiwari, Shiv Barat came in side the jail and the petitioner No. 2 also accompanied and reported by Kacchapal Bhanu Prasad Yadav. (ii) On 26.2.06 petitioner No. 1 and 2 with one Munna Tiwari and others were accompanied inside the jail by the petitioners due to which any occurrence might have taken place and the same is against the jail manual. (iii) In relation to occurrence one application was filed by Karunakar Choudhary which was enquired by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda in which charges were proved. It has been further stated that the Enquiry report submitted by Sri Abraham Minj in which Enquiry Officer held guilty to the petitioners for the charge of allowing to enter the jail premises to Shiv Barat along with 15-20 unknown and criminal elements. It has been further averred that the petitioners during departmental proceeding submitted their written defence denying the charges. It has been further stated that vide memo No. 4441 dated 19.7.2010, the Joint Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand directed the petitioners to file their reply to second show cause as the enquiry officer found them guilty for the charge for allowing the outsiders to enter the premises of jail. It has been further stated that the petitioners submitted their reply to second show cause again denying the charges. It has been further averred that the Enquiry Officer neither discussed nor considered the reply of the petitioners while submitting the enquiry report. It has been further stated that the enquiry officer simply referred the statement of witnesses (who has not been cross-examined by the petitioners) and in the enquiry report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda, petitioners pointed out these points in their reply. It has been further averred that vide order dated 16.9.10 both the petitioners have been dismissed from service by the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand. It has been further averred that the Superintendent of Jail, Dumka vide letter dated 23.9.10 intimated the petitioners that both the petitioners were dismissed from services with effect from 16.4.10 in the light of the aforesaid punishment issued vide memo No. 5778 dated 16.9.10. It has been further averred that petitioner filed appeal before the Hon'ble Minister vide their application dated 4.10.10 and thereafter reminder was again sent by the petitioner No. 1 vide letter dated 4.12.10 and by the petitioner No. 2 vide letter dated 6.12.10. 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 their grievances.
(3.) Heard Mr. (Dr.) S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned J.C. to A.A.G. for the respondent-State.;