JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing Force Order No. 859 of 2014 as contained in memo No. 274 dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.3 in Departmental Proceeding No. 21 of 2014 whereby the petitioner has been reverted to the basic pay of his post for a period of five years equivalent to three black marks. Further prayer has been made for quashing Force Order No. 698 of 2015 as contained in memo No. 1851 dated 10.08.2015 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.2 whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents, particularly the respondent No.3, to forthwith revisit the order of punishment dated 17.10.2014 on the ground of quantum of punishment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Hawaldar-Devashish Biswas and Hawaldar-Shambhu Charan Sawaiya filed complaint before the respondent No.3 against the petitioner alleging that he along with other persons beat them using filthy and abusive language. The respondent No.3 got the preliminary enquiry conducted through the In-Charge, Home Guard, namely, Dhanpati Sawaiya (Sub-Inspector), IRB-3, Camp-Piparwar, Chatra wherein it was found that on 09.09.2014 (night), the petitioner by hatching conspiracy, put the light off and assaulted his senior as well as used filthy language against him which shows indisciplined behaviour and dereliction of duty on his part. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 called for an explanation from the petitioner vide Charge Memo No. 575 dated 23.05.2014 to be submitted within seven days which was replied by him on 18.06.2014. However, the respondent No.3 issued formal charge sheet against the petitioner vide memo No. 686 dated 16.06.2014 and a departmental proceeding No. 21/14 was initiated against him. Thereafter, the enquiry officer called for an explanation from the petitioner which was replied by him denying all the allegations in the charge sheet. However, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report dated 08.08.2014 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The respondent No.3 then issued second show cause notice to the petitioner vide memo No. 198 dated 22.08.2014 which was replied by him on 13.09.2014. However, the impugned order of punishment as contained in memo No. 274 dated 17.10.2014 was passed reverting the petitioner to the basic pay of his post for a period of five years equivalent to three black marks. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the respondent No.2, however, the same was rejected vide Force Order No. 698 of 2015, a copy of which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo No. 1851 dated 10.08.2015.

3. It is further submitted that the impugned order of punishment dated 17.10.2014 has been passed without application of mind as well as appreciation of evidence as no witness had taken the petitioner’s name. Moreover, in view of Rule 832 of the Jharkhand Police Manual [hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Manual’], the punishment of this nature should have been restricted to forfeiture of maximum one month’s pay and hence the impugned order of punishment dated 17.10.2014 is violative of the said Manual as well as is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the enquiry officer had recorded the statements of the witnesses in presence of the petitioner and he was also provided due opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses, hence the impugned order of punishment dated 17.10.2014 has not been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same does not require any interference of this Court under the writ jurisdiction. It is also submitted that punishment of reduction to basic pay is altogether different punishment from the punishment of withholding or reductio