Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1192 (JHR)

Arvind Kumar Ray v. State of Jharkhand

2019-06-21

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
ORDER : Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner an Md. Sahil, A.C. to learned G.A. III for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing order dated 28.07.2010, by which, the petitioner was dismissed from services; for quashing order dated 18.12.2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected and also for quashing order dated 13.01.2012 whereby the memorial appeal of the petitioner was rejected. 3. The petitioner, who was posted as reserved Guard at Gumla Piket was served with a memo of charge dated 15.06.2010 alleging that he unnecessarily quarreled with one Sachin Kumar Thakur, who was working in the same picket as Water boy and also threatened other police personnel. Further, on 10.06.2010, he left the picket with officially allotted rifle and bullets without taking permission from his senior. When the petitioner did not return, he was searched by other police personnel. It has further been alleged that he made a call on the mobile of one ASI Ashok Tiwari intimating that he is going to join the group of Naxalite. However, on search by police personnel, the petitioner was found in the house of Munna Sahu with the wife of Munna Sahu. In the charge it has further been alleged that he has illicit relation with one Poonam Kumari and other girls also. Pursuant thereto, enquiry officer was appointed, and the petitioner was put under suspension. After enquiry the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report. Basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from services vide order dated 28.07.2010 against which the petitioner preferred appeal which was rejected and aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed memorial appeal which was rejected vide order dated 13.01.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner is per verse and against the mandate of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to Annexure 4 and 4/1 of the writ petition, the affidavits sworn by said Poonam Kumari @ Janki Kumari and Sukhwanti Devi, wherein they have categorically denied the allegation of having any relationship with the petitioner. On the basis of these two affidavits, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that allegation levelled against have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. On the basis of these two affidavits, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that allegation levelled against have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has suppressed the fact as for the same issue, he has previously filed one writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4473 of 2012. It has further been submitted that in the departmental proceeding the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and put forth his case. As a matter of fact, the petitioner left the picket with his service rifle without intimation or permission. This action of the petitioner is gross indiscipline and risky for his life as well as the life of citizens in the highly naxal effected area. Though in the affidavit of Poonam Kumar @ Janki Kumari stated that she does not know the constable Arvind Kumar Ray (petitioner) but before the enquiry officer she appeared as a witness on 23.06.2010 and stated that she know very well the constable Arvind Kumar Ray. Further the deponent Sukhwanti Devi in her affidavit (Annexure 4/1) has stated that she came to know by villagers that the petitioner was recovered on 01.06.2010 with rifle but on the other hand, she stated that she does not know the petitioner. Hence, both the affidavits are not reliable. Considering these facts the enquiry officer gave its finding, basing on which the petitioner was dismissed from services which has been confirmed by two higher authority in appeal and in memorial, hence, needs no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the affidavits of Poonam Kumar and Shukanti Devi (Annexure 4 and 4/1), on which the petitioner are relying upon, is not reliable and further it appears that the petitioner has somehow managed these affidavits to save his skin and to make out a case of alibi and further this Court finds that there is no procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental proceeding, no case of interference is made out. In the enquiry proceeding, the enquiry officer examined the witnesses and after affording opportunity to the petitioner to place his case and after considering the materials available on record, the enquiry officer came to a concrete finding that the charges against the petitioner have been proved and basing on such finding, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner, which has not been interfered with by the appellate authority and revisional authority. 7. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.