PATNA, India, Sept. 29 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 29:
This Court has heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to an order contained in Memo No. 4106 dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Superintendent of Police, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal in departmental proceeding No. 4/2017. The order of dismissal questioned before the Appellate Authority also came to be dismissed vide order contained in Memo No. 135 dated 31.12.2020 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, affirming the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner. The aforesaid appellate order has also put to challenge by filing the present writ petition.
3. The facts, in brief, as pleaded in the writ petition reveal that the petitioner was duly appointed on 11.02.1984 on the post of Constable in the Bihar Police and posted at Patna District Force. On 29.05.2017, while the petitioner was serving as a Constable in Economic Offence Unit, Bihar, Patna, he was assigned the work to hand over certain letters to the office of the Enforcement Directorate, Bihar, Patna. On the next date, i.e., 30.05.2017, the petitioner was found absent in the office and, accordingly, a report was submitted with respect to absence of the petitioner, whereafter internal enquiry was made to find out the whereabouts of the petitioner. After the enquiry, it was informed that the petitioner has been made accused in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 293 of 2017 on 29.05.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 37(a), 37(b) and 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and was remanded to judicial custody on 30.05.2017.
4. The aforesaid incidence led to suspension of the petitioner under Memo No. 3056 dated 05.06.2017 with effect from 29.05.2017 on payment of subsistence allowance. Subsequently, under Memo No. 3280 dated 04.06.2017, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice as to why a departmental proceeding not be initiated against him, and on being found no response to the show cause notice, a departmental proceeding bearing No. 4/2017 was initiated under Memo No. 3601 dated 06.07.2017. The charge memo was drawn against the petitioner along with the list of documents and witnesses. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his written defence statement; also examined defence witnesses to prove his innocence. After completion of the enquiry, the conducting officer submitted the enquiry report dated 30.08.2018. The second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner under Memo No. 6030 dated 22.10.2018 seeking his explanation against the proposed punishment of dismissal. The petitioner submitted his explanation. However, on being dissatisfied with the same, the Superintendent of Police vide his Memo No. 4106 dated 11.09.2020 dismissed the petitioner from services. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police. However, this also did not find any succor and finally came to be rejected vide memo No. 135 dated 31.12.2020 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
5. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned orders of punishment as also the appellate order, submitted that the authorities had completely ignored the fact and circumstances, that the petitioner was riding on a bike being driven by another Constable, who was going to drop the petitioner at his house, as the petitioner in course of unloading and destroying the seized liquor his clothes were drenched with the alcohol on account of breaking down of the bottles and falling of the liquor but, in the meanwhile, he met with an accident. The person assembled there caught him and handed over to the police, who on being found the smell of alcohol suspecting consumption of liquor, brought him to the Hospital for breath analyser, besides blood and urine test, which subsequently led to institution of the FIR, but on suspicious circumstances. The petitioner was inflicted with the harshest punishment of dismissal ignoring the unblemished service career for more than 33 years, which is wholly arbitrary and malafide.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTAwOTMjMjAyMSMxI04=-mYDHZQ2yjkA=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
