Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) Challenging the impugned order, dated 8.11.2001 passed by the Commandant-respondent No.3, pertaining to removal from services and the order, dated 15.2.2002 passed by the appellate authority i.e., D.I.G of Police, respondent No.2, confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the present writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for quashing of the aforesaid orders along with the prayers for reinstatement in services with back wages and other consequential benefits.
(2.) The brief facts, as described in the writ application, is that after successful completion of written, medical and physical test petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable in the year 1993. After joining the said post, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities and the services of the petitioner has also been appreciated by the concerned respondents because the petitioner has been awarded few certificates for meritorious services. But, all of a sudden, on 26.06.2001 memo of charges, vide Annexure-2 was issued to the petitioner. On receipt of the said charges, petitioner submitted his reply as evident from Annexure-3. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed and matter was enquired into and after conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner was given opportunity to file his statement against the enquiry report which the petitioner did. However, the respondent No.3 basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer imposed the punishment of removal from services with immediate effect vide memo, dated 8.11.2001 as per Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal of services also met the same fate vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order of punishment vide Annexures-6 and the order passed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-9, the petitioner left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted with vehemence that the impugned orders vide Annexures-6 and 9 have been passed with mala fide and oblique motive, at the instance of some interested persons/officials, which has resulted in petitioner being meted out with civil/evil consequences. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that assuming the charges alleged against the petitioner have been proved by the Enquiry Officer, but the same appears to be grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and on the ground of doctrine of proportionality, the impugned orders passed by the respondents i.e., disciplinary as well as appellate authority ought to be interfered with. During course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 399 and has also referred to paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, so as to put forth his argument that the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has received certain commendations for his good work but because of misconduct, major penalty of removal from services has been passed. But, considering the proven misconduct, the punishment appears to be harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.;