- (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ application is to the order dated 14.11.2003 (Annexure -4) passed by the respondent No. 5 whereby the petitioner was discharged from the post of Police Constable and also to the order dated 26.6.2004 (Annexure -5) of the appellate authority namely the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan Range, Chaibasa whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order of his dismissal was dismissed and also to the order dated 28.9.2007 (Annexure - 6) passed in the petitioner's Memorial Appeal by the Director General -cum -I.G. of Police, Jharkhand. Praying for an order to quash the aforenoted impugned orders, the petitioner has also prayed for an order/direction to the concerned respondents, as may be deemed appropriate under the law.
(2.) EARLIER , against the order of his discharge passed in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner had preferred a writ application before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 2200 of 2004. While disposing of the writ application, this Court had directed the appellate authority to dispose of the petitioner's appeal filed against the order of his discharge, within a period of three months. Against the impugned order of the appellate authority the petitioner had filed another writ application before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 4386 of 2004. By order dated 6.4.2007, a Bench of this Court had permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ application with liberty to prefer a Memorial Appeal before the competent authority. His Memorial Appeal having been dismissed by the impugned order (Annexure -6), the petitioner has filed this writ application against not only the order of dismissal of his Memorial Appeal but also against the earlier orders both of his discharge from service and the order dismissing his appeal against the order of discharge. The petitioner's case in brief is that he was appointed as Police Constable under the State Police Service on 26.7.1994 and was posted in the district of Chaibasa. After obtaining his training from the Police Training School, Nathnagar, he was posted in the district of Deoghar and occasionally on deputation at Chakradharpur within the district of Singhbhum. During his posting at Deoghar, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him by the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa on 18:6.2002 on the charge that he had contracted a second marriage with another lady during the lifetime of his first wife without taking permission from the department, such act, being in violation of the Government Servants Conduct Rules. Denying the charge, the petitioner had contested the departmental proceeding claiming that he had never married any other lady during the lifetime of his legally married wife who is living with him. He had also denied to have any connection whatsoever with the other lady, namely Anukanta Kerketta and that his wife Poonam Khalkho had lodged a false complaint against him only due to her grievance that he was not looking after her and her children and was inflicting torture upon them. Later, on realizing her fault, she had submitted her written declaration before the Superintendent of Police; Chaibasa that she had leveled false allegations against her husband on account of domestic quarrels and that her husband had never married the other lady. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it is claimed that the enquiry into the complaint against the petitioner's illegal second marriage was conducted by the Dy. S.P., Chaibasa namely Smt. Sandhya Rani Mehta and had submitted her report of enquiry but at the departmental proceeding she was not examined nor was the petitioner afforded any opportunity of cross -examining her. Furthermore, the complainant namely the petitioner's wife Poonam Khalkho was also not examined at the departmental proceeding and neither was the petitioner afforded any opportunity of cross -examining her. The other lady namely Anukanta Kerketta, with whom the petitioner is alleged to have contracted second marriage, has also not been examined in the departmental proceeding.
(3.) SRI S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the failure of the enquiry officer to examine the material witnesses to afford opportunity to the petitioner to cross -examine them and on the other hand, placing implicit reliance on the ex -parte enquiry report submitted by the Dy. S.P., the departmental proceeding was conducted in a most arbitrary manner and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer was therefore, perverse, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel contends that the subsequent letter of the petitioner's wife, on whose initial complaint the departmental proceeding was initiated, had herself submitted her denial of the allegations even during the pendency of the departmental proceeding and such denial ought to have been considered by the enquiry officer. The manner in which the departmental proceeding was conducted, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner in his defence. Learned counsel adds further that the petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the report of the enquiry officer and the findings recorded therein and this fact was categorically stated in the Memorial Appeal filed by the petitioner and also before the appellate authority. Learned counsel adds further that in addition to the impugned order of discharge, the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa (Respondent No. 5) had also ordered to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,965/ - from the salary of the petitioner, to be given to the petitioner's wife Poonam Khalkho for her maintenance even though, the allegation of the petitioner's second marriage was not established. Learned counsel contends that the appellate authority has merely accepted the report of the enquiry officer and dismissed the petitioner's appeal without application of mind and as such, the impugned order of the appellate authority is also illegal, perverse and against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that for the same reason, the impugned order of the superior authority in the Memorial Appeal filed by the petitioner, is also illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. ;