- (1.) THE appellant in this appeal is a Constable, who has joined the service in the year 1980. On 18.1.2002 he was entrusted with the work of escorting three under trial prisoners from court Hazat to produce them before the respective courts. After production these three persons with the handcuff and also tied with rope were being brought back to the court Hazat. At about 3.30 p.m., while they were coming back, one person, namely, Akhilesh Singh, managed to remove the handcuff as well as the rope tied with hands and escaped. The delinquent -appellant was not able to chase him because he was having the ropes tied with the hands of the other persons. Therefore, he immediately took both of them to court Hazat and handed over them to the custody of Havildar Laldeo Singh. Immediately information was given to the Jail Superintendent. On the basis of that information given by Havildar Laldeo Singh, a case was registered against the said accused, Akilesh Singh, for the offence under Sec.224 of the Indian Penal Code . Thereafter, within two days of the incidence, the Investigating Officer in the case filed requisition before the court concerned, requesting to add two more accused, namely, the delinquent as well as Havildar Laldeo Singh, as co -accused and also prayed for converting the case into a case for the offence under Sec.225 read with Sec.120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the investigation continued. In the meantime, the petitioner/appellant was suspended on 20th January, 2002 and served the chargesheet, asking him to show cause. In pursuance of the said chargesheet, the appellant filed his reply to the show cause on 4.2.2002. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the Department. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted the report on 11.4.2002, holding the charges proved. In pursuance of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East, issued second show cause on the same day to the delinquent, the appellant The appellant sent a reply on 19.4.2002. Having not satisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal on 21.6.2002. Aggrieved with the dismissal order, the delinquent -appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur at Ranchi and the same was dismissed on 5.11.2002.
(2.) ASSAILING the said order, the petitioner/appellant (delinquent) filed a writ petition before the Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6666 of 2002 and the same was dismissed on 29.4.2004, which is the subject matter of challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard learned counsel for the delinquent -appellant as well as the respondents. The main point urged by the counsel for the appellant -delinquent is that the Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary authority without application of mind would hurriedly come to the conclusion that the charge is proved, even though there is lack of evidence with reference to the negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the delinquent. There is no dispute in the fact that even the learned Single Judge would refer to the evidence of Witness nos.2 and 3 that they are irrelevant witnesses, because one witness speaks about the typing of the suspension order and another speaks about signature appended by the Superintendent of Police on the suspension order. Only evidence which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge, in the light of the Inquiry Report is the evidence of Witness no.1, who is Dy.S.P., who was investigating the case, which was registered under Sec.225 Indian Penal Code, which refers to the negligence on the part of the delinquent.
(3.) WE have gone through the inquiry report. We have also asked counsel for the State to point out the portion from inquiry report as to where the Inquiry Officer has discussed with the evidence with respect to the negligence or dereliction of the duty on the part of the delinquent.;