The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing the authority of departmental bodies to determine the quantum of punishment and the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties.

Pramath Patnaik, J. - Aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services vide order dated 30.04.2014 passed by the S.P., Giridih being confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag vide order dated 28.07.2014, the petitioner filed this writ application for quashing of the aforesaid order and for direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services.

2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in nut shell, is that when the petitioner was posted in town Police Station, Giridih, a charge sheet was submitted against him with the allegations of misconduct and dereliction of duty. The petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. After following the procedure inquiry officer submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty of charges. In pursuance to the findings of the inquiry officer, the S.P., Giridih, (respondent no.4) issued show cause notice vide letter dated 30.12.2013 on the proposed punishment of dismissal from services, in difference thereto the petitioner submitted his show cause reply. Thereafter, the impugned order of dismissal was passed vide order dated 30.04.2014, vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. Against the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal which been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 28.07.2014 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application. Hence, the writ application.

3. Heard Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, J.C. to S.C.I, appearing for the respondents.

4. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the impugned order of punishment of dismissal dated 30.04.2014 being affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 28.07.2014 are harsh, excessive and disproportionate because of the fact that the occurrence was incidental and no intentional, therefore, the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges. Learned senior counsel further submits that the appellate authority not considered all the points raised in the appeal and passed a mechanical, non-reasoned and non-speaking order. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner during course of argument referred to Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, which inter alia envisages:

"Rule 826. Discrimination necessary in awarding punishments.- The punishment awarded should be in conformity with the gravity of offence with which the officer is charged and offences involving moral turpitude shall be carefully discriminated from smaller wrong doings. It should also be borne in mind that the previous record of service of the officer concerned, if it is not already included in the charge of the proceeding shall not be taken into account for determining the quantum of punishment.

The objective of awarding punishment is firstly to keep a record of the wrong doings of the officer and secondly as a measure of correction to alert him to improve his work and conduct. Several punishments awarded in one lot such as during inspections which do not provide an opportunity to the delinquent officer to improve himself are not likely to be helpful. In any case, the punishment cannot be awarded without carefully considering the defence of the delinquent officer.

Before issuing orders of minor punishment, it is necessary to apprise the delinquent of the charges against him and he should be given adequate opportunity for defence. After this been ensured, the punishment can be awarded. However in the case of major punishments (see Rule 828) formal proceedings in P.M. Form no.178 will have to be drawn up."

5. Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, J.C. to S.C.I appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner was deputed in Panther Mobile in Giridih (T) P.S. and Government pistol with Butt No.23, Arsenal No. 1533