JUDGMENT :

Since common issue is involved in all these writ petitions filed by sole writ petitioner; as such all are being heard together and decided by this common order.

2. These writ applications have been preferred by the sole petitioner against three punishment orders by which major punishment of stoppage of six months increments have been imposed and also against the respective appellate orders by which the appeals preferred by the petitioner were rejected. The details of respective punishment orders are as follows:-

(a) Punishment order dated 27.07.2010 & appellate order dated 23.02.2011 which are challenged in W.P.(S) No.3908/12.

(b) Punishment order dated 29.07.2012 which is challenged in W.P.(S) No.6397/12.

(c) Punishment order dated 21.02.2011 & appellate order dated 9.11.2011 which are challenged in W.P.(S) No.6408/12.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in all these writ applications is that there are procedural irregularities committed by the respondents while passing the respective punishment orders, inasmuch as, though all the punishment was major punishment but the respondents have not issued the second show cause notice and no any witness has been examined in these cases and the Enquiry Officer has acted as representative of the department which is admittedly against the settled principle of service jurisprudence.

4. Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all these cases during departmental proceeding neither any witness was examined nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to crossexamine any of the witness and the Enquiry Officer has submitted its report with the finding that the petitioner was guilty for the alleged misconduct. He further submits that the punishment of stoppage of six months increments has been imposed upon this petitioner in all these cases which is admittedly a major punishment in terms of Rule 835 of Jharkhand Police Manual. As such on the ground of procedural irregularities, the impugned orders suffer from infirmity and deserve to be quashed.

5. Mr. Satyam Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the stand of the petitioner and draws attention of this Court towards Rule 828(c) of Jharkhand Police Manual and submits that under this rule it is not necessary that a formal enquiry in the form of any proceeding shall be initiated and in such cases Superintendent need not hold the enquiry himself, nor shall the delinquent have the right to appear before him, but he has the right to appear before officer deputed to record the evidence and to take his defence. In nut shell, in all cases wherein increments proposed to be adequate punishment; this may be inflicted without any formal enquiry.

He concluded his argument by submitting that since lowering down the increments can be imposed without any formal enquiry in view of the Rule 828(c); no formal enquiry is required even it is deemed to be a major punishment.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the relevant documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein it appears that to decide the issue involved in these applications few rules of Jharkhand Police Manual is necessary to be discussed.

For brevity Rule 824, 828(a) & (c) and 835 are quoted as under:-

824. Description of departmental punishments.—The following punishments which are sanctioned under Section 7 of Act V of 1861 may be inflicted departmentally on a police officer of and below the rank of Inspector :—

(a) Dismissal,

(b) removal.

(c) compulsory retirement.

(d) reduction in rank.

(e) forfeiture of last increment(s) or future increment(s),

(f) black mark or marks,

(g) censure,

(h) confinement to quarters for a period not exceeding 15 days,

(i) punishment drill,

(j) extra guard or fatigue duty.

Provided that the punishments mentioned in clauses (h) and (j) shall be imposed only on members of rank of constables/Havildars and that in clause (i) shall be imposed only on constables.

Notes. — (1) Superintend