Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 21.04.2012 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services; and for quashing appellate order dated 09.07.2012 and also for quashing revisional order dated 07.2014 and further for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that the petitioner while serving on the post of Constable in Koderma District Force, a memo of charge was served upon the petitioner on 28.10.2011 on the allegation that while the petitioner was deputed as Armed Guard in Tiliya Police Station on 08.07.2011 along with other police personnels, all returned at 3.00 O'clock in the morning to their barrack and returned their arms and ammunitions, but, the petitioner was found absent along with his rifle and cartridges. For this charge, he was put under suspension on 09.07.2011. However, later on he deposited his rifle and cartridges and again absconded. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply, to which, the petitioner replied. Being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which led to passing of impugned order of dismissal from services, which has been affirmed in appeal and revision.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not taken into consideration wherein he has categorically stated that in between 05.06.2011 to 15.06.2011 he was on leave and went to his village where some abnormality in his mental status was found and he was admitted in Patna Medical College and Hospital at Patna and when the petitioner became normal he joined his duty. Furthermore, the prescriptions annexed with the reply has also not been disbelieved by the enquiry officer. It has further been submitted that due to mental illness the petitioner could not deposit six round of cartridges but later on, on being detected, the petitioner deposited the same with permission of the higher authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the witness-Islam Ansari during cross-examination has categorically stated that he found the petitioner to be abnormal during the relevant period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer without verifying or disbelieving the stand of the petitioner that he was suffering from mental illness and discarding the evidence on record travelled beyond the charge and found the petitioner guilty. Referring to the decision rendered in the case of M.V. Bijani Vs Union of India & Ors, 2006 5 SCC 88, learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that the enquiry officer cannot go into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the absence was not willful and it was beyond the control of the petitioner to report for or perform duty and it is the disciplinary authority being a quasijudicial authority, who has to prove that the absence was willful. But, in the instant case, he has failed to do so, hence, the impugned order is vulnerable. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmr Vs. Union of India & Anr, 2012 3 SCC 178.;