Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter aila, prayed for setting aside/quashing the order dated 31.08.1992 passed in Departmental Proceeding No. 7/1991 by respondent no. 4-Superintendent of Police, Dumka, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from services and to quash order dated 26.12.2002 passed by respondent no. 3-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka confirming the order passed by disciplinary authority and also for direction upon the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages along with consequential service benefits.

2. The factual matrix, bereft of unnecessary details in a nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed as constable in the month of January, 1985 in pursuance of appointment letter issued to the petitioner as contained in Memo no. 196 dated 28.01.1985 and after joining, he continued to discharge his duties. While continuing as such, a Memo of charge was framed against the petitioner vide Memo no. 409 dated 12.03.1991 (Annexure 2), containing the charge as under:

“The character of this petitioner was found to be doubtful in course of character verification for employment.”

It has been stated that thereafter enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, who submitted enquiry report dated 16.08.1991 (Annexure 3). In the said enquiry report, it has been stated that enquiry was conducted ex-parte since the petitioner did not turn up in the departmental proceeding. In the enquiry report, it has further been stated that on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses and the exhibits, the charge was proved against the petitioner and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Dumka vide Memo no. 2074/Ra Ka dated 05.11.1991 (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 s