Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Annexure 4) directed the petitioner to submit reply within 15 days as to why the petitioner shall not be dismissed from services, to which, the petitioner responded on 20.12.1991 (Annexure 5) contending therein that the copy of character verification was never served upon the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the Superintendent of Police, Dumka punished the petitioner by order dated 31.08.1992 passed in Departmental Proceeding No. 7/1991 (Annexure 6). Thereafter, it has been stated that the petitioner preferred appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Pargana Range, Dumka in the month of November, 1992. It has further been stated that in the year 2001, when the petitioner approached the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Pargana Range, Dumka, he was told that copy of the appeal was missing and, on being directed, the petitioner again submitted appeal on 22.07.2001, which too stood rejected vide order dated 26.12.2002 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment of dismissal dated 31.08.1992 and order dated 26.12.2002, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

4. Per contra, the respondents have filed the counter affidavit controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been submitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was temporarily appointed on the post of Constable and during character verification of the writ petitioner, on the report of Officer- in-Charge, Suryagarha Police Station, Munger, Bihar, the character of the petitioner was found to be doubtful and it has come to surface that several cases of road robbery and dacoity viz. Suryagarha P.S. Case No. 184 of 1982 under Section 395; Case No. 191 of 1982 under Section 395; Case No. 1 of 1983 under Section 396; Case No. 4 of 1983 under Section 395, Case No. 118 of 1983 under Section 395 and Case No. 138 of 1983 under Section 395 has been instituted and on the order of Superintendent of Police, Munger, the necessary Dossier A/147 was also opened against the petitioner. It has been submitted that on the above report, the petitioner was dismissed from services by Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka, who after hearing the petitioner accepted the appeal and set aside the order of Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj vide order dated 17.12.1989 (Annexure B). It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that under provisions of Police Manual charge was framed by the Superintendent of Police and with a copy of character verification report it was supplied to the petitioner vide Memo no. 409 dated 12.03.1991 for clarification but the petitioner never submitted clarification on the charge. Thereafter, Departmental proceeding no. 7/91 was initiated against the petitioner and the conducting officer has given sufficient opportunities for fling 2 nd clarification and to cross-examine the witnesses but the petitioner remained absent, therefore, lastly on 16.08.1991, the conducting officer furnished his opinion to the Superintendent of Police Dumka for further action. It has further been stated that on the findings of the conducting officer, the Superintendent of Police, Dumka vide Memo no. 2074/Ra. Ka dated 5.11.1991 directed the writ petitioner to submit his clarification within 15 days, to which, the petitioner responded on 06.12.1991 stating therein that he has not been provided the copy of exhibits of charge, copy of character verification report and copy of opinion of the conducting officer, which were however supplied by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka vide Memo no. 443 dated 03.04.1992 and further the writ petitioner has been given 15 days time for filing his clarification. The writ petitioner submitted his clarification on 03.06.1992, which was found unsatisfactory by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka and accordingly the writ petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from his services vide order dated 31.08.1992. The writ petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka, that too after lapse of several years i.e in the year 2001, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.12.2002. It has further been contended that the action taken by the authority concerned is legal, genuine and in consonance with provisions of the Police Manual as such the writ petition derseves to be dismissed in limine.

9. On perusal of the materials available on record and after giving my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions, the impugned order of dismissal at Annexure 6 dated 31.08.1992 and appellate order dated 22.07.2001 at Annexure 8 deserves to be quashed and set aside for the following facts and reasons:

(i).On perusal of the alleged charge as contained in Memo no. 409 dated 12.03.1991, it appears that the same being not specific appears to be very vague and allegation in the charge does not constitute misconduct. Moreover, after rendering about 6 years of services, the proceeding has been initiated relating to character verification.