The judgment establishes the importance of following the rules over the advertisement, the requirement of a Trained Home Guard for reservation, and the proportionality of the dismissal as a punishment.

D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3364 of 2013 dated 18th January, 2014 whereby, the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 was allowed and the order of dismissal dated 14.10.2012 and the appellate order dated 14.04.2013 were quashed and set aside and the present appellants were directed to reinstate respondent no.1 with full back wages.

2. Factual Matrix

Public advertisement was issued on 13th January, 2004 and the applications were invited for the post of Constable by the State of Jharkhand.

Those, who were Home Guards they can also apply for the post in question. Last date of submission of application was 15th February, 2004.

Respondent no.1 (original petitioner) filled up the form and as per column 10 of the said application form there was need to annex certificate of Home Guard.

The respondent enrolled as a Home Guard and was getting his training. His training was to be completed on 15th March, 2004.

The training period was of 45 days and during the course of training of Home Guards the respondent (original petitioner) filled up the form and submitted the same and instead of certificate of Home Guard, identity card of Home Guard was annexed.

The respondent cleared all types of tests and ultimately, was appointed on the post of Constable under the reserved seats for Home Guards.

As per Rule 663 of the Jharkhand Police Manual enacted under Section 7 to be read with Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 for appointment on the post of Constable, Trained Home Guard can be appointed and if a candidate is Trained Home Guard there will be 50% reservation.

The training of the respondent (original petitioner) was going on as on last date of application i.e. on 15th February, 2004 and instead of certificate of Home Guard, identity card of Home Guard was annexed and got the benefit of 50% reservation quota.

When the identity card was sent for verification, it was found that the respondent (original petitioner) had never completed the training at all of Home Guard as on 15th February, 2004, which was the last date for preferring an application, for the post of Constable, in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 13th January, 2004.

Therefore, chargesheet dated 2nd April, 2012 was issued upon the respondent which is annexed at Annexure-3 to the memo of this L.P.A.

Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the respondent ultimately, charges levelled against the respondent-delinquent employee were held as proved, as per the enquiry officer report dated 30th August, 2012 (Annexure-6 to the memo of this L.P.A.)

The disciplinary authority issued 2nd show cause notice dated 8th September, 2012 (Annexure-7 to the memo of this L.P.A.) and after again giving adequate opportunity of being heard the disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan dismissed the respondent from the services of police vide order dated 14th October, 2012 (Annexure-9 to the memo of this L.P.A.).

The respondent-delinquent employee preferred departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Kolhan Range, Chaibasa, who dismissed the appeal of the respondent vide order dated 14th April, 2013, which is at Annexure-11 to the memo of this LPA.

Hence, respondent no.1 (original petitioner) preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3364 of 2013 challenging the order of dismissal dated 14th October, 2012 (Annexure-9 to the memo of this L.P.A.) as well as the order, passed by the Appellate Authority dated 14th April, 2013 (Annexure-11 to the memo of this L.P.A.).

The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18th January, 2014 and hence the original respondent i.e. the State of Jharkhand has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellants:

Learned Additional Advocate General of the State has submitted that no e