Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1113 (JHR)

Nitesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-26

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER On 25.09.2013, when the matter was listed, on the second call also counsel for the petitioner was absent. Today also on the second call, counsel for the petitioner is absent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents namely, Mr. Vaibhav Kumar is present. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the documents on record. 3. The petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 08.01.2011, appellate order dated 26.04.2011 and revisional order dated 07.09.2011 4. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 20.04.2005. The petitioner was suspended on 04.10.2010 on the allegation that he had stolen the ATM card of his colleague and withdrawn Rs. 27,400/- on two occasions from the ATM machine. An enquiry was initiated in the matter and a report was submitted on 29.12.2010. A second show-cause notice was issued on 31.12.2010 to the petitioner and after considering the materials on record, on 08.01.2011 the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. On perusal of the documents filed along with the writ petition, I find that on 26.09.2010 the alleged occurrence had taken place and when the footage of the CCTV Camera was seen, it was detected that it was the petitioner who had been seen withdrawing money from the ATM machine. Subsequently, the petitioner has confessed his guilt and he returned the entire money in two installments. 6. A complaint was made on 28.09.2010 and an enquiry was conducted in the matter. In view of the enquiry report dated 03.10.2010, the petitioner was suspended on 04.10.2010 and thereafter a charge-memo dated 08.10.2010 was given to the petitioner. 7. During the departmental enquiry 3 witness were examined and evidence was brought on record in support of the charge. I find that Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority have dealt with the matter in a proper manner and after conducting an enquiry, penalty of dismissal from service has been passed against the petitioner. I find no illegality in the impugned orders and therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.