Tapen Sen, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, learned GP-II for the State respondents,

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Annexure 3 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the appellate order passed by the Deputy Inspector General oi Police, South Chhotanagpur Range being the order issued on 14.12.1995 (Annexure 4) conforming the order of dismissal.

3. Evidently and as is apparent from the enquiry report that has been brought on record by the respondents themselves vide Annexure A in the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 3, the petitioner was proceeded against for the following offences :

(a) for refusing to accept a command for being present on duty on 6.12.1991 on the occasion of Bharat Band;

(b) for not being present and on duty on the arrival of Swami Shankaracharaya; and

(c) misbehaviour with one Mchiuddin, a personnel of the police department,.

4. The enquiry report discloses that for the offences in relation to 6.2.1991, it has been found that the petitioner refused to accept the command for being on duty. So far as this charge is concerned, there is a finding against the petitioner. So far as the other charge is concerned i.e. the one relating to visit of Swami Shankaracharaya, the charge against the petitioner was that he was not on duty at 13.15 hours on 17.2.1991 (see the original order of dismissal as contained in Annexure 3). However, the enquiry report does not deal with it at all. On the contrary, the finding is that the petitioner did not go in the night patrolling duty on 17.2.1991 at 22.00 hburs. Nothing has been said in relation to the charge i.e. not being present at 13.15 hours on 17.2.1991 for attending Swami Shankaracharya.

5. The charge-sheet has not been brought on record but from the order of the appellate authority, it is evident that the past character of the petitioner including his allegedly being addicted to drugs and alcohol were taken into consideration for purposes of conforming the order of punishment although these charges were not included in the charge-sheet. Moreover, these three allegations are not even mentioned in the enquiry report because there is no discussion as to whether the petitioners past character was bad or whether he was addicted to ganja or alcohol. Obviously therefore the order of the appellate authority who takes into consideration these allegations for purposes of conforming the order of punishment appears to be extraneous to the charge-sheet.

6. That apart, when a police officer is not on duty then an entry is to be made as per Rule 116(g) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 (now Jharkhand Police Manual). No such entry appears to have brought on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner as to whether he was really absent or not. Additionally, if the aforementioned charges are read together, what ultimately appears is that, the real offence alleged against the petitioner was not accepting the command/ refusing to accept the command for being on duty on 6.2.1991. The other charge in relation to the visit of Swami Shankaracharya at 13.15. hours on 17.2.1991 becomes doubtful because there is no discussion in the enquiry report about the same save and except to record that the petitioner did not accept the command for being in the night patrolling duty on 22.00 hours on 17.2.1991.

7. It appears therefore that the appellate authority has confirmed the order of dismissal in a mechanical manner and has proceeded to take into consideration charges which were not included in the charge-sheet. None of the parties before this Court have been able to demonstrate or establish that the charge- sheet included charges that the petitioners conducted was bad and that he was addicted to ganja and alcohol.

8. In that view of the matter, this Court has no option but to rely