The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline and the requirement to prove prejudice in cases of non-serving of enquiry report, affirming the authority's discretion in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for quashing the order of punishment dated 20.08.2021 by which the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of one black mark and also for quashing the appellate order dated 26.11.2021, by which the Appellate Authority has affirmed the order of punishment.

3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. In the year 2012, in terms of advertisement and after due selection process, the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police and accordingly, he joined the said post on 22.06.2012. While the petitioner was posted as Officer Incharge of Radha Nagar Police Station in the district of Sahibganj, on the basis of information received from the Forest Department, on 26.02.2021 during the patrolling at Balugram Kabristan, at 04:30 a.m. two trucks loaded with coal were seized and after preparation of the seizure report, it was sent to the Campus of the Police Station for security reasons. At the same time, it has been given information that another two trucks loaded with coal are unloading at Madarsa, South Piarpur and accordingly, at 05:00 a.m. the petitioner rushed to the place of occurrence and seized other two trucks and from both of the trucks no document has been produced and therefore both the trucks were given on zimenama to one Md. Habibul Rahman security and monitoring.

4. Thereafter, on the basis of written complaint made by one Bihari Mandal, the Authority of the Forest Department lodged the FIR bearing Radha Nagar P.S. Case No. 46 of 2021 under Sections 41, 42 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act. Since the engine of the seized trucks were not functioning therefore, two Chowkidars namely, Birbal Dholi and Jagmohan Mohli were deputed for security/ monitoring of said trucks and copy of command was issued on 26.02.2021. It is further case of the petitioner that on 17.03.2021, Chowkidar Birbal Dholi filed an application stating therein that two trucks had been fled away and on the basis of such information, FIR bearing Radha Nagar P.S. Case No. 67 of 2021 has been lodged under Sections 188, 379, 353, 406, 407 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Thereafter, in the month of May, 2021, the petitioner has received a letter issued vide memo No. 1942 dated 04.05.2021 by the respondent no. 4, whereby explanation has been asked for from the petitioner in relation to Radha Nagar P.S. Case No. 67 of 2021. In the said letter it appears that the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Rajmahal in his supervision note has stated that Md. Habibul Rahman has stated that when the drivers of two trucks were taking the trucks, he has already informed the Officer Incharge but the Officer Incharge did not inform it to his Superior nor it has been mentioned in the station diary and thus the act of petitioner amounts to negligence and dereliction of duty. After receiving the said letter dated 04.05.2021, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply stating therein that there is no dereliction of duty on his part and has requested to exonerate him from the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

6. However being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, charges were framed and departmental proceeding bearing No. 21 of 2021 has been initiated against the petitioner by appointing one Rajendra Kumar Dubey, Sub-Divisional Police Officer as the Conducting Officer. Thereafter, the Conducting Officer vide memo No. 1337 dated 25.07.2021 submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority based on the enquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer, passed the order of punishment dated 20.08.2021, imposing punishment of one black mark against the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority which also stood dismissed vide appellate order dated 26.11.2021.

Hence, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.

7