Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 41 (JHR)

Aklesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-09

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ application, whereby the disciplinary authority of the petitioner by order dated 31.8.1987 imposed punishment of dismissal from Service on the basis of the Enquiry Report of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and also the order of the appellate authority as contained in Annexures 8, 8/1 and 8/2 to the writ application passed by the D.I.G., Director General of Police and the State Government dismissing the appeal and confirming the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. 2. The facts of the matter in short are that the petitioner was a Police Constable posted in Bihar Military Police No. IV, Bokaro and he was charged for committing forgery and fraud by doing a wrong entry in the record of Company Office and also for taking diet allowances for the unauthorised period and, accordingly, for the said charges, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. 3. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report after conclusion of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner wherein it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were established and proved. Thereafter the petitioner was asked to show cause. It appears from Annexure 7 i.e. the order of the disciplinary authority that in spite of notice to show cause, the petitioner did not submit show cause and, accordingly, the disciplinary authority on the basis of the Enquiry Report and after considering the materials on record passed an order holding the petitioner to be guilty and imposed punishment of dismissal from service, effective from 29.8.1984. The said order was communicated to the petitioner vide Memo. No. 2925 dated 31.8.1987. 4. The petitioner filed an Appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ranchi against the order passed by disciplinary authority. The Deputy Inspector General of Police after considering the entire materials on record, by his detail order as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ application, also concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority and considering the gravity of charges against the petitioner held that the order of dismissal was perfectly justified and thereby dismissed the appeal. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police after considering the entire materials on record, by his detail order as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ application, also concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority and considering the gravity of charges against the petitioner held that the order of dismissal was perfectly justified and thereby dismissed the appeal. 5. Thereafter the petitioner moved before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna who considered the points raised by the petitioner and then by an order dated 9.8.1989 as contained in Annexure 8/1 rejected the representation of the petitioner. Even the State Government dismissed the representation of the petitioner by order dated 13.8.1996 as contained in Annexure 8/2 to the writ application. 6. The petitioner by filing the present writ, application has challenged the order of his dismissal from service on various grounds based on facts, e.g., that he was not supplied with the copy of the Exhibits and, therefore, he could not cross-examine the witnesses effectively, the Commandant did not consider his show cause or his defence at all and that the disciplinary authority did not consider the statement of the witnesses in its right perspective. 7. The petitioner also raised the point of discrimination on the ground that one another Police Constable, namely, Babban Ram, Constable No. 559 of B.M.P. also withdrew Diet allowance illegally for a period of 250 days, but the Director General of Police only issued a direction to deduct that allowance from the pay of Babban Ram in easy installments, whereas for the same charge, the petitioner has been dismissed, though even according to the charge, he received Diet allowance for four days only. 8. The Statement made in the writ application has been controverted by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit. It has specifically been stated that it is wrong to say that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the Exhibits but as a matter of fact the copy of the documents were supplied to him and he submitted his show cause. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the charge against the Police Constable Babban Ram and the petitioner were not the same. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the charge against the Police Constable Babban Ram and the petitioner were not the same. As a matter of fact, Babban Ram was deputed as orderly to the Deputy Commandant, whereas the petitioner was the Writer Constable who was responsible for the entry in the Register regarding Diet allowances and, therefore the charges against the petitioner were grievous in nature and, as such, the punishment has been awarded to him considering the gravity of the charges. The petitioner was provided full opportunity to defend his case and the departmental enquiry was held in fair and proper manner. 9. I have carefully gone through the recommendation of the Conducting Officer as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application and also the order passed by the appellate authority as contained in Annexures 8 and 8/1 to the writ application. I find that the learned disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have carefully examined the materials on record and after appreciation of evidence, they have come to a definite finding on the basis of facts on record that the charges against the petitioner was fully established and, therefore, he was found to be guilty. 10. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate authority and cannot substitute its own finding over the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and also order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The petitioner has not been able to show that the findings arrived at by the respondents were perverse or not based on the materials on record and, therefore, I do not find any material to upset the findings arrived at by the respondents. 11. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, I find that, in view of the nature and gravity of the charge, which has been proved against the petitioner, the punishment for dismissal passed by the authorities concerned also need no interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and hence, the application is dismissed but without any cost.