D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner who had preferred W.P.(S) No. 4588 of 2011, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 8th March, 2017, whereby, the order of punishment passed by the Deputy Director General of Police, Bokaro was upheld and hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix : • On 18th March, 2008 at Dhanbad Police Station, the appellantdelinquent abused the Superintendent of Police- Mr. Sinha in a loud voice and he was also giving threat to him in presence of several other persons. His behaviour was not befitting that of a police officer and hence, he was suspended and later on, chargesheet was given on 26th March, 2008. Said document is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. There is also charge against this appellant, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police, that he had gone to the Print and Electronic Media and false and wrong information was given to the said media, which was also published in the newspaper. Due to this act of the appellant, the image of the police department has been ruined in the eye of public at large and for these misconducts, chargesheet was issued upon this appellant. • Enquiry Officer was appointed and on the basis of the statement given during the course of departmental enquiry by all 10 witnesses and other documentary evidences on the record, Enquiry Officer has given a report dated 25th January, 2009 and he has held that charges levelled against this appellant-delinquent were proved. • Thereafter, a copy of the enquiry report along with the statement were supplied to this appellant (in total 27 pages) and the Disciplinary Authortiy- Deputy Director General of Police passed a detailed order dated 18th September, 2009 (Annexure 8 to the memo of the L.P.A.) and order of punishment of compulsory retirement of this appellant was passed. There is reference of earlier seven major punishments and 32 minor punishments inflicted upon this appellant in the past. Thus, there appears a consistency in the unbecoming behaviour of this appellant. • Departmental appeal was preferred by this appellant-delinquent which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority-Director General of Police vide order dated 28th June, 2010 (Annexure 9 to the L.P.A). • Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the order of punishment, a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 4588 of 2011 was preferred by this appellant, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 8th March, 2017 and hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel appearing for the appellant: • Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that charges levelled against this appellant have not been proved. Moreover, the enquiry report was not supplied to this appellant, except nine pages of it. • It is further submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that there is a violation of the Rule 116 of the Jharkhand Police Mannual. • Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions: (a) Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2008 3 PlJR 292 (SC) (b) Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. Karunakar, 1993 4 SCC 727 (c) State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 2 SCC 772 (d) Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2000 AIR(SC) 277 • Counsel appearing for this appellant has taken this court to the entries made in the station diary and submitted that this appellant could not remain present in two places at a time as is apparent from the entries made in the station diary. He has also submitted that Anticipatory Bail was moved before this court, which was rejected vide order dated 25th September, 2008 and later on the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted him Anticipatory Bail vide order dated 15th December, 2008. • It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this court can exercise powers of judicial review. • These aspects of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, hence this Letters Patent Appeal may kindly be allowed.;