- (1.) HEARD Shri Jitendra Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned J. C. to Sr. S.C. II for the Respondent -State.
(2.) CHALLENGE , in this writ application, is to the order dated -03.12.2005 (Annexure -2), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka (Respondent No. 4) whereby the punishment of forfeiture of annual increments of the petitioner for six months equivalent to one Black Mark, with all consequences thereto, was imposed. Besides, the prayer for quashing the aforesaid impugned order of the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner has further, prayed for quashing the order dated -10.04.2006 (Annexure -4), passed by the appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Respondent No.3), whereby, the petitioner's appeal against the impugned order of the Respondent No. 4, has been dismissed. The petitioner in the rank of the A.S.I. of Police was posted at Saraiyahat Police Station in the district of Dumka. On certain charges of misconduct, he was served with a notice on 10.11.2005 by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka, calling upon him to show cause and submit his explanation to the specific charges. The petitioner offered his explanation, which was not found satisfactory and a proceeding was initiated against him. On conclusion of the proceeding, the impugned order dated -03.12.2005 (Annexure -2) was passed against him.
(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure as laid down under the provisions of Rule 828 (c) of the Police Manual, has not been followed. It is explained that before passing the order imposing major punishment, the mandatory procedure as laid down in Rule 828 (c) of the Police Manual had to be followed in as much as the findings on the charge with reference to the explanations offered by the petitioner has not been discussed and recorded. The punishment has been imposed without either discussing the explanations offered by the petitioner or assigning any reasons as to why the explanations have not been found satisfactory. In support of his contention, learned counsel would refer to and rely upon a judgment of this Court, passed in the case of Sunil Kumar -versus - State of Jharkhand & Others, vide W.P. (S) No. 2758 of 2006.;