Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1484 (JHR)

Suman Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-20

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.1.2007 (Annexure-1) passed by the Respondent No.5, whereby the petitioner has been discharged from service from the post of constable. 3. Facts of the petitioner's case in brief, is as follows:- In response to an advertisement issued by the concerned authorities of the respondents for appointment of constables in. the State Police Service, the petitioner had applied in the general category. He had appeared at the prescribed test including the physical test and was declared qualified and selected. Upon his selection, his name was recommended for appointment on the post of constable. On the basis of such recommendation, he was appointed on the post of constable on 18.5.2005 and was posted at Sahebganj. He was subsequently transferred to Deoghar. 4. As per the petitioner's averment, after his appointment, he was also sent for Obtaining police training which he had undergone and thereafter, he was sent for obtaining anti-naxal training which he had undergone at Punjab. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that having confirmed the petitioner in service on the post of constable, yet, after about two years from 'the date of his appointment, he was all of a sudden served with the impugned order of dismissal from service on 25.1.2007 (Annoxure-7), on the ground that his actual height was less than what was originally recorded at the time of conducting the physical test. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the petitioner's dismissal from service, is totally illegal and against the procedure laid down under the provisions of the State Police Manual and also against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, before proceeding to terminate the petitioner's services, he was neither served with any notice to explain as to why his services should not be terminated, nor was any disciplinary proceeding initiated against him on any specific charge. 7. Learned counsel adds further that even otherwise, the ground on which the petitioner's services have been terminated, would be of no relevance in view of the admitted fact that the minimum required height for appointment of constables is 160 cm. whereas admittedly, the petitioner possesses more than 165 cm. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. whereas admittedly, the petitioner possesses more than 165 cm. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents would want to Invite attention to certain paragraphs of the counter affidavit to explain that as it appears, the petitioner has suppressed his actual height and on re-measurement, his height was found less than 165.2 cm, though earlier, his height was recorded as much higher. 9. From the counter affidavit, it appears that the petitioner's specific contention that no prior notice was served upon him before passing the impugned order of dismissal from service, has not been controverted by the respondents. It also appears that admittedly, the petitioner's actual height was found to be 165.2 cm. which apparently, is much above the minimum prescribed height required for the post of constable. The counter affidavit does not explain as to what could be the reason and the circumstances which had prompted the concerned authorities to remeasure the height of the petitioner after the petitioner was finally appointed and allowed to discharge his duty for almost two years from the date of his appointment. 10. I am satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without adherence to the Rules of procedure as laid down in the State Police Manual and is also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, I find merit in this writ application and the same is therefore allowed. The impugned order dated 25.1.2007 (Annexure-1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with 50% of the back wages. The period during which the petitioner has remained out of service, shall be treated as the period spent on duly.