JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 01.08.2016 whereby he has been reverted to the post of Constable from the post of A.S.I. for two years. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 11.08.2016, passed in Departmental Appeal No.1606 of 2016, by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Palamau Region, Daltonganj, affirming the order of punishment.

It has also been prayed for quashing the order dated 12.06.2017, passed by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. As per the factual matrix, while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at Manika Police Station, Latehar, he was given the charge of a case i.e. Manika P.S. Case No. 40 of 2016 dated 06.06.2016 registered under Section 263/266 of the I.P.C for investigation. It is apparent that the said case was registered for kidnapping of a minor girl, which was lodged by her father and upon receipt of the charge, petitioner started investigation of the said case. On 19.06.2016, news was published in the daily newspaper, Hindustan Times that a minor girl was subjected to inhumane torture tortured at Manika P.S. and as a result of which, she became unconscious. Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court had taken cognizance of the matter and directed respondent-State to file affidavit mentioning therein that what steps were taken against the Officers responsible for the said incident. Consequently, the respondents vide memo No. 1357 dated 20.06.2016 issued show-cause to the petitioner for the charges that he has not properly investigated the case being Manika P.S. Case No. 40 of 2016. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 20.06.2016, whereby he has categorically denied the charges levelled against him. However, finding the reply of the petitioner being not satisfactory, the respondent started departmental proceeding against him by appointing Enquiry Officer vide memo dated 22.06.2016. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the respondents issued order of punishment dated 01.08.2016.

Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred a Departmental Appeal No. 1606 of 2016 and the said appeal stood dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2016, confirming the order of punishment. Thereafter, the petitioner has also exhausted the remedy of filing revision before the D.G.P., Jharkhand which has been summarily rejected by the D.G.P. vide order dated 12.06.2017.

Hence, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court for redressal of his grievances.

4. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the action of the respondent is whimsical, arbitrary and against the cardinal principle of natural justice and amounts to colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel submits that without issuing second show-cause notice or supply of the enquiry report, the order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner and as such, it amounts to violation of cardinal principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has investigated the matter after taking permission from the superior authority and during the interrogation, female constables and father of the minor girl was also present at the spot. Learned counsel further argues that from a bare perusal of the order passed by the Director General of Police, it is apparent that none of the points raised by the petitioner in the revision has been considered nor even any reasoning whatsoever has been assigned while dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner and hence, the order passed by the appellate authority is wholly arbitrary and illegal and non-speaking order and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that during the departmental pro