PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of order dated 30.05.2007 issued under the signature of Superintendent of Police, Pakur-respondent no. 4 whereby the petitioner has been awarded with punishment of dismissal from services and for quashing of order dated 21.02.2008 issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka whereby the punishment awarded by respondent no. 4 has been modified to infliction of punishment of withholding of all increments for three years and further ordered that the period from the date of dismissal to reinstatement in service will be treated as leave without pay and further prayed for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner initially was appointed as Armourer in the district of Ranchi and in the year 1997 he was transferred to Pakur in District Force. While continuing as such, he lodged an F.I.R bearing Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 66 of 2005 before Officer-in-Charge, Town Police Station, Pakur against 4-5 boys of trespass and assault on him and of snatching of gold chain and ring and for taking away Rs. 7000/- from his bag under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 307, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is further averred that one Bhola Bhagat, seller of K.D. Liquor and Fertilizer, Pakur also lodged an F.I.R alleging that the petitioner along with 6-7 persons came to his shop and took away Rs. 20,000/- from the cash box and has given threat to kill him, on the basis of which, Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 67 of 2005 was lodged under Sections 448, 323, 342, 506, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In pursuance to the aforesaid cases, a supervision was conducted by Sub- Divisional Police Officer, who after taking into consideration of the statements made by the witnesses, came to the conclusion that Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 66 of 2005 is true whereas Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No. 67 of 2005 is not true. But that supervision note was not accepted by respondent no. 4 and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of dismissal from services vide order dated 30.05.2007. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal from services, the petitioner preferred appeal, wherein the appellate authority after considering all the facts including the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case, modified the earlier order of dismissal from services to withholding of all increments for three years and directed to reinstate the petitioner in services and further held that period of dismissal from services till reinstatement shall be treated as leave without pay.
(3.) Left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioner approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.;