W.P. (S) No. 3277 of 2013. Case: Satyendra Kumar Vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court

Case NumberW.P. (S) No. 3277 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate and For Respondents: Ms. Nehala Shamim, Adv.
JudgesS. Chandrashekhar, J.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateNovember 13, 2013
CourtJharkhand High Court

Judgment:

S. Chandrashekhar, J.

1. Challenging order of dismissal dated 14.10.2012 and the appellate order dated 07.04.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an advertisement dated 13.01.2004, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable. The petitioner appeared in the physical test conducted on 26.07.2004 and on being successful, he was appointed as constable on 10.05.2005. On 27.03.2012, a charge-memo was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that he gave wrong information of his being Home Guard in his application form and he had obtained identity-card through wrongful means. On 29.05.2012, the petitioner submitted his reply however, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After the enquiry report was submitted on 30.08.2012, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.09.2012, which was replied by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal from service on 14.10.2012 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed on 07.04.2013.

2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4, stating as under:--

8. That the statements made in para-5 & 6 of the petition, it is respectfully submitted on behalf of the answering respondent No. 4 that petitioner filed some documents which are subsequently found not correct and therefore a departmental proceeding order to be initiated against him.

That the only points for consideration that whether the petitioner has completed the Home Guard training from 01.03.2004 to 15.03.2004 when the last date for filing application was 15.02.2004 for the reserved category. The petitioner worked and filled up the form on wrong pretext and took advantage when he had not completed training, so no reply is given by the petitioner on this point.

9. That the statements made in para-7 of the petition, it is respectfully submitted on behalf of the answering respondent No. 4 that it is false to say that the petitioner has completed the Home Guard at the relevant time and it is also submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has admitted that he has completed his Home Guard training subsequently.

10. That the statements made in para-10 (i to iii) of the petition, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has given C/s and there are the allegations made against the petitioner.

11. That the statements made in para-11 and 12 of the said petition it is respectfully submitted that these are matter of record hence required no comments.

12. That the statements made in para-11 and 12 it is respectfully submitted that there are the matter of record hence no comments.

13. That the statements made in para-13 (i to xv) it is respectfully submitted on behalf of the answering respondent that these are matters of record and finding the misdeeds of the petitioner, the petitioner has been found guilty and thereafter dismissed from the service in the departmental proceeding and thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector of Police, Singhbhum, Kolhan, Chaibasa and who has been pleased to confirm the order passed by respondent No. 4, there is no illegality.

14. That the statements made in para-14, 15 & 16 of the said petition, it is respectfully submitted on behalf of the answering respondent No. 4 that the order passed by the respondent No. 4 that the allegation are false on behalf of the respondent No. 4 that the allegation are false and the fact will find in the records and it is false to say that enquiring officer has not taken any proper steps for examination of witnesses but the witnesses have already been examined in presence of the petitioner hence the allegations are denied.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions namely, (i) the charge against the petitioner was vague and therefore, the petitioner was denied an effective opportunity to meet the charges, and (ii) under the provisions of the Bihar Home Guards Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner was a Home Guard and since it has been found by the departmental authorities that the identity-card produced by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT