- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly against the action of the respondent authorities, discharging the present petitioner from service, who was working as a Constable with the respondents.
(2.) SEVERAL charges were levelled against the present petitioner. A departmental inquiry was conducted for the charges, levelled against the present petitioner, which were proved and the petitioner was discharged from the services, vide order dated March 31, 2005. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the quantum of punishment is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the nature of charges, the punishment, inflicted upon the present petitioner, is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges and, therefore, the order impugned, passed by the respondent authority dated March 31, 2005 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Likewise, the order, passed in departmental appeal, dated July 7, 2005, also deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that there are as many as four charges, levelled against the present petitioner. The present petitioner was working in the Police Department and the personnel of the Police Department are wedded with discipline. Looking to the nature of charges, levelled against the present petitioner, at Annexure 2 to the memo of present petition, all the four charges are serious in nature. The present petitioner has beaten another police, when he was on duty. So far as charge no.2 is concerned, the present petitioner, while on duty, was taking lunch and dinner at the service place instead of taking lunch and dinner in the police mess. So far as third charge is concerned, the present petitioner was not wearing the cap and was not properly affixing his token and whenever, he was told or objected, he was not giving proper answer to the higher officers. The petitioner was remaining in Bazar/market. The forth charge, levelled against the present petitioner, is that he was giving threat to another guard, namely, Afzal Khan. All these chares, as per the submissions, made by the learned counsel for the respondents, have been proved. The respondents have examined as many as eight witnesses and the report has been given by the inquiry officer on November 9, 2004, which is at Annexure 3 to the memo of present petition. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that considering the aforesaid facts, punishment was inflicted upon the present petitioner vide order dated March 31, 2005, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of present petition, discharging the petitioner from the services. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was given and in the departmental appeal also the decision of the disciplinary authority was confirmed vide order dated July 7, 2005, wherein, it has been held that the charges are proved against the petitioner and the quantum of punishment has also been maintained in the departmental appeal. The order, passed in departmental appeal, is at Annexure 6 to the memo of present petition. Thus, looking to the seriousness of the charges, it cannot be said that the punishment, inflicted upon the present petitioner, is grossly disproportionate or shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges, levelled against the petitioner, and, therefore, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court.;