- (1.) PETITIONER 's grievance in this writ application is against the order of his dismissal dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police -7, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner has prayed therefore for quashing the impugned order of his dismissal as also for issuing a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service as constable with full back wages.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent State. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Bihar Military Police, Bokaro in the year 1986. He was transferred and posted at Hazaribagh. During his tenure at Hazaribagh, a complaint was filed against him by one Kedar Nath Singh on 17.3.1998 and pursuant to such complaint, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner after serving him a charge -sheet. The petitioner had submitted his written statement in his defence in the inquiry conducted. During the pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to the findings in another departmental proceeding. Such an order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner before this court and the same was set aside, whereafter, he was reinstated in service at Hazaribagh. After his reinstatement, the proceeding referred to in the present writ application, which had remained suspended, was resumed and at the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer had recorded his findings that charge against the petitioner was proved. It also appears that before the Disciplinary Authority could take any action on the basis of the inquiry report, the petitioner was transferred from Hazaribagh to Deoghar and a copy of the inquiry report alongwith the second show cause notice was forwarded to the petitioner through his concerned superior in office at Deoghar. The petitioner though did not submit replies in response to the third show cause notice, but demanded supply of certain documents which were claimed as necessary to enable him to submit his effective show cause replies. However, the impugned order was passed by the respondent no. 3 dismissing the petitioner from service.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order on two grounds: '' i. The order of dismissal is illegal and against the Rules inasmuch as, the respondent no. 3 had ceased to continue as the Disciplinary Authority since after the petitioner's transfer to Deoghar and he could not have exercised any power whatsoever to pass an order of dismissal or to pass any such order against the petitioner. ii. Even otherwise, the impugned order suffers from illegality inasmuch, while recording the order of punishment, the respondent no. 3 had allowed himself to be influenced by extraneous considerations namely, the petitioner's purported past conduct, although no such past conduct had constituted any part of the charge which was originally framed against the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer. ;