JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Alok Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.

3. This writ petition was filed on 06.05.2011 with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings including the draft charge as contained in Memo No. 1365 dated 25.03.2011 issued by the respondent No.

4. The challenge was made alleging that the respondent-authorities have already made up their mind for imposing major punishment and the department proceedings was merely a formality. It was alleged in the writ petition that the authorities have acted without application of mind as the departmental proceeding was already initiated, but still the petitioner was being asked to file show cause reply stating that if no reply is filed, departmental proceedings will be initiated. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the departmental proceedings were concluded and the petitioner was dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. On account of subsequent developments, the petitioner challenged the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority by filing I.A. No. 221/2018 in the present case, which was allowed on 05.11.2018 and consequently, the entire disciplinary proceedings including the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are under challenge in the present proceedings. In the present proceedings, the charge memo dated 25.03.2011 (Annexure-2); the order of dismissal dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-11) and appellate order dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure-14) are under challenge.

Arguments of the petitioner

5. While referring to the foundational facts of this case, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner had participated in the selection process pursuant to advertisement published in the year 1988 and the petitioner was directed to appear for the physical test vide Roll No. 755 issued by the duly constituted Selection Board and after becoming successful in the physical test, the petitioner was directed to appear in the written test, in which also he was declared successful. The further fact as stated in para-6 of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 19.05.1995 as contained in Memo No. 1877 by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh vide Order No. 563/95 mentioning that the petitioner was appointed to the post of constable in special circumstances on humanitarian ground.

6. The learned counsel has referred to the letter of appointment as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which admittedly does not refer to any advertisement or recruitment through advertisement, but it refers to appointment on humanitarian ground under special circumstances and on purely temporary basis.

7. The learned counsel further submits that thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from one place to another and suddenly, he was subjected to the aforesaid charge contained in Memo No. 1365 dated 25.03.2011.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following points to challenge the impugned proceedings and orders:

(a) The learned counsel submits that the entire proceedings has taken place by a pre-determined mind, when seen in the light of the letter issued by higher authority, which indicated that the petitioner is to be dismissed after holding an enquiry. For this, the petitioner has referred to the letter of the Inspector General Of Police, Ranchi contained in memo no. 176 dated 05.03.2011 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi.

(b) Immediately after receiving the draft charge, the petitioner, by letter dated 29.04.2011, had requested for supply of the exhibits which was mentioned in the charge memo and had also issued various letters in connection with the supply of the exhibits of the charge memo and some other documents, which were required by the petitioner in order to file his show-cause reply. He has furthe