JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 10.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.7135 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the order of dismissal dated 05.06.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority, the order dated 02.08.2013 passed by the appellate authority, the order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the revisional authority and the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, has been declined to be interfere with.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder :-

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that when the appellant was deputed as Constable in Pundag O.P. Reserve Guard, Ranchi, he was put under suspension and a charge memo was served vide memo no.2640 dated 07.05.2012, wherein, it was alleged that on 15.04.2012, the appellant left the Guard and went to Chanho without permission and when returning, he asked for lift from a motorcycle and after travelling some distance he took away the motorcycle from the owner and parked the motorcycle within the campus of Pundag O.P. In this regard, the owner of the motorcycle lodged an FIR being Chanho P.S. Case No.40 of 2012 dated 15.04.2012 under Section 392 of the IPC. During investigation, the officer In-charge, Chanho came to Pundag O.P. He found the motorcycle in the campus of Pundag O.P. and as he was inquiring, the writ petitioner came out of his barrack and fires four rounds of bullets from his allotted Govt. rifle and only after intervention of other police constables, the arm was taken away from him. Thereafter, on written complaint of Officer In-charge, Chanho Sri Rajiv Ranjan Lal, an another FIR was lodges being Jagannathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case No.103 of 2012 dated 16.04.2012 under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The writ petitioner was asked to file show cause within one month.

4. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove based upon the pleading that the writ petitioner while discharging his duty as Constable, was subjected to departmental proceeding initiated vide memo no.2640 dated 07.05.2012.

5. The aforesaid proceeding was initiated on the basis of the charge levelled against him as per the imputation of charge referred in the memorandum of charge, for ready reference, the said memorandum of charge is being referred as under:-

vkjksfir iqfyl 1000@e`R;qat; dqekj ds fo:) ?kksj vuq'kklughurk] ykijokgh] euekusiu] vkns'kksYya?ku mn.M vkpj.k ,oa ,d v;ksX; iqfyldehZ gksus dk vkjksi yxk;k tkrk gS&
;s iq0 1000 e`R;qat; 'kekZ] iqunkx vks0ih0] fjtoZ xkMZ] jk¡ph esa izfrfu;qDr FksA fnukad 15-04-2012 dks vius xkMZ ls fQjkj gksdj pkUgks x;s FksA ogk¡ ij os fdlh futh tku igpku ds O;fDr;ksa ls feyus ds ckn la/;k esa ykSVus ds Øe ,d eksVj lkbZfdy pkyd ls fyV ysdj mlds eksVj lkbZfdy ij lokj gksdj ykSV jgs Fks fdUrq og dqN nwj ykSVus ds i'pkr~ eksVj lkbZfdy lokj O;fDr dks uhps mrkj mldh eksVj lkbZfdy ysdj iqunkx vks0ih0 pys vk;s rFkk eksVj lkbZfdy dks iqunkx vks0ih0 ds izkax.k esa [kM+k dj fn;sA bl laca/k esa eksVj lkbZfdy ekfyd }kjk pkUgks Fkkuk dkaM la0 40@12] fnukad 15-4-12 /kkjk 392 Hkk0n0fo0 iathd`r djok;k x;k gSA dkaM ds iathd`r gksus ds i'pkr~ Fkkuk izHkkjh] pkUgksa Jh jktho jatu yky vius lg;ksfx;ksa ds vuqla/kku ds Øe esa iqunkx vks0ih0 izkax.k esa [kM+s voLFkk esa ik;s rr~i'pkr iqunkx vks0ih0 mifLFkr inkf/kdkjh ,oa iqfyl dehZ ls eksVj lkbZfdy ds laca/k esa iqNrkN dj gh jgs FksA mlh Øe esa iqfyl 1000@e`R;qat; dqekj 'kekZ vius cSjd ls fudys vkSj vius uke ls vkoafVr ljdkjh jk;Qy ls 4 xksyh tku ekjus dh fu;r ls Qk;j dj fn;kA fdlh rjg e`R;qat; dqekj 'kekZ dks 'kL+=fofgu fd;k x;kA rnksijkar Qk;j fd;s x;s 4 xksyh dk [kks[kk dks cjken dj fof/kor tIrh lwph cukdj tIr fd;k rFkk iq0 1000 e`R;qat; dqekj 'kekZ dks pkUgks Fkkuk dkaM la0 40@12 esa fxjrkj dj cjken eksVj lkbZfdy