The court emphasized the validity of the punishment and promotion denial based on the petitioner's actions and the effect of punishment in the departmental proceedings.

Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 1.2.2010, passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the order of punishment of withholding one increment for a period of three years has been passed and for quashing the order, as contained in order no. 378/10, dated 21.5.2010, whereby the promotion of the petitioner has been denied and further for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police with effect from the month of May, 2010 alongwith all consequential benefits.

2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the State Police with effect from 25.11.1983 and after bifurcation of the State, he has been allocated the cadre of the State of Jharkhand and his services have been placed to the Crime Investigation Department, in which the petitioner is at present posted as Constable. It has been further averred in the writ application that while the petitioner was posted as a member of Crime Investigation Department team in the district of Gumla, one memorandum of charge was issued as contained in memo no. 830 dated 29.5.2009, whereby charges have been leveled regarding unauthorized absence and 2nd charge is with respect of dereliction in duty, while he was deputed to discharge his duties on 9.7.2009. It has been further averred that by virtue of the order dated 29.05.2009, the petitioner was directed to give reply within a period of fifteen days and in pursuance of the same, he has given his reply, denying the entire allegation with specific averment that so far as second charge is concerned, the petitioner has already been inflicted punishment. The respondents authorities without taking into consideration the reply to the show cause, have passed an order on 1.2.2010, inflicting punishment of withholding one increment for a period of three years, clarifying that it will not affect his future increment. It has been further averred that the order dated 1.2.2010 is absolutely incorrect and illegal, in view of the fact that although two charges have been leveled against the petitioner one with respect to unauthorized absence while another is with respect to incidence of 9.7.2009 and in the memorandum of charge itself, it has been stated that with respect to incidence occurred on 9.7.2009 a departmental proceeding was already initiated against the petitioner being Departmental Proceeding No.33/05, wherein the punishment of withholding increment for a period of six months has been inflicted upon the petitioner and, thus, with respect to the 2nd charge, he has already been inflicted with a punishment, but, to the utter consternation of the petitioner, the respondent authorities while framing charge against him, the second charge for which the petitioner has already been punished, has also been made a charge against him and hence on this ground alone the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated in law and, as such, the order dated 1.2.2010 is also not sustainable in the eyes of law as because an employee/person once punished or convicted cannot be re-punished or reconvicted in view of the express provision, as contained in Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. It has been further averred that the respondent authorities have further acted in a highly arbitrary manner in view of the fact that although the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher post i.e. to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police with effect from the month of May, 2010 but his case has not been considered, rather it has been rejected on the ground of order of punishment dated 1.2.2010 vide order dated 21.5.2010.

Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under art