D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) CHALLENGE , in this writ application, is to the order dated 15.08.2001 (Annexure -1), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 4), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Challenge also is to the order dated -04.05.2003 (Annexure -13), passed by the D.I.G., North Chhotanagpur (Respondent No. 3), which is the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 12.06.2004 (Annexure -16), passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal, filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of his dismissal. While challenging the aforesaid impugned orders, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the same and for issuing a direction to the Respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. Facts of the petitioner's case are as follows: The petitioner, Nawal Kishore, was posted as In -charge of Ramgarh Police Town Hall Post. On 11.08.2001, a written report was submitted at the Ramgarh Police Project Town Hall by one Santosh Vishwakarma, containing certain allegations against one Priya Ranjan Pandey. Being in -charge of the Police Project Town Hall Post (T.O.P.) the petitioner forwarded the written report to the Ramgarh Police Station for registration of a case and assumed charge of investigation of the case. The case was registered at the Police Station vide Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 227 of 2001, dated -12.08.2001 for the offences under Section 341, 323 and 379/34 of the I.P. Shivdhan Hembram Versus State Of Jharkhand C. The Officer in - charge of Ramgarh Police Station, endorsed the investigation of the case to the petitioner. In course of investigation, the petitioner proceeded to the alleged place of occurrence, arrested the accused, recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing the Investigation, submitted chargesheet, which was received in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh on 17.08.2001. On the same day, on the basis of the chargesheet, the C.J.M. took cognizance of the offences against the accused Priya Ranjan Pandey. and transferred the case to the trial court for trial. The trial court recorded the statements of the informant, Santosh Vishwakarma and another witness, namely, Sudhir Kumar. Subsequently, on 21.09.2001, the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh directed for further investigation and a further Police Report was submitted in the said case on 31.01.2002, declaring that the case was false. A prayer was made by the accused of the case for acceptance of the final report but the trial court refused to accept the same by taking an objection that the final report was submitted by conducting a further investigation into the case without obtaining prior permission of the Court. Aggrieved by the order of the C.J.M., the accused Priya Ranjan Pandey filed a criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh against the order of the C.J.M., vide Cr. Revision No. 69 of 2002. The Criminal Revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by his order dated - 28.09.2002. While this was so, the accused Priya Ranjan Pandey filed a case against the petitioner, which was registered at the Sadar Police Station as Sadar P.S. Case No. 402 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 341 and 379/34 of the I.P.C. Upon investigation, the case was found to be false and a Police Report was submitted accordingly. The accused Priya Ranjan Pandey, thereafter filed several cases against the petitioner. All such cases were investigated under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, who found that the cases filed by Priya Ranjan Pandey was only to harass the petitioner and to implicate him falsely and accordingly, all such cases filed by Priya Ranjan Pandey were dropped.
(3.) IN the meanwhile, soon after the petitioner had submitted the chargesheet in the case Registered on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by Santosh Vishwakarma, the then Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh by his impugned order dated -15.08.2001, recorded and served upon the petitioner a composite charge and in contemplation of a departmental proceeding on the basis of the charge, had placed the petitioner under suspension. The substance of charge was that despite the fact that there was a longstanding feud between the petitioner's son and a neighbouring resident, namely, Bajrang Kumar son of late Banwari Pandey, both residents of Suresh Colony, Hazaribagh, the petitioner proceeded to Suresh Colony accompanied by the Police Force of the Police Town Hall Post and arrested the accused Priya Ranjan Pandey in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 227 of 2001. Before proceeding to arrest the accused, the petitioner did not give any prior information to the officer in -charge of the concerned Police Station nor had taken assistance of any Police Force of the concerned Police Station and neither had he informed his superior Police Officers. On the inference that the aforesaid acts and conduct of the petitioner was impelled by revengeful and malicious motives by way of personal vendetta, and considering such acts to be acts of misconduct under the Police Service Code, a Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Though he was called upon to appear and face the proceedings, the petitioner did not appear. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry ex parte and at the conclusion, had recorded his finding that the charge was proved against the petitioner. However, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the D.I.G., Police, by his order dated - 28.01.2002, set aside the enquiry and directed for conducting a de novo enquiry. Subsequently, a show -cause notice was served upon the petitioner, referred to as the second show cause notice, asking him to explain as to why he should not be punished with dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted his show -cause replies. The Disciplinary Authority, namely, the D.I.G. of Police, by his impugned order dated -04.05.2003, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of his dismissal but his appeal was dismissed by the impugned order of the Appellate Authority. ;