Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 455 (JHR)

Rajendra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2011-06-06

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
Order The delay of 224 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. 2. Heard the counsel for the parties on merit of the case. 3. The petitioner -appellant was charge sheeted who was working as a Sargent Major and as per the allegation against the petitioner, he did not comply with the orders passed by the higher officials for submitting the daily parade statement. The petitioner was punished with one “Black Mark' and his appeal against the order of punishment was dismissed on 17.8.2005. The petitioner preferred the writ petition before this Court after delay of three years in the year 2008 on 10.6.2008. However, the writ petitioner was not dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of such delay, but on merit. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no fair inquiry and the appellant was not given any opportunity of hearing or instruction by the higher officials for submitting daily parade statement and without examining this state of matter, the appellant was held guilty. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been punished with one “Black Mark” entered in his service record which may deny the promotion to the petitioner appellant in time. 5. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition as well as the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 20.7.2009. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has considered the facts of the case and after taking note of all those facts, reached to the conclusion that there is no illegality in conducting of the enquiry nor it can be said to be a disproportionate punishment in the facts of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the punishment order as well as the order passed by the appellant authority, but after perusing the said order, we are of the view that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Letters Patent cannot and should not interfere with such order, where fair opportunity was granted to the appellant, and it has been observed that the appellant even could not bring out anything from the cross examination of the witnesses, but deposed on the basis of the documents. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit, which is accordingly, dismissed.