The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in disciplinary proceedings, including providing a fair opportunity for the accused to defend and recording valid reasons for differing from the findings of the enquiry officer.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. In instant writ petition petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj vide order No. 945 dated 25.06.2011 whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of police constable.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 19.01.2016, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has been rejected.

Petitioner has also prayed for direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in services as for the same set of charges he has been acquitted in criminal trial.

3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Police Constable against Advt. No. 01/2004 in the district of Dhaband and his brass number was 934. The petitioner gave his joining before the respondent-authorities on 04.11.2008. the petitioner was sent for initial training at Deoghar and thereafter posted at Dumka. It is the case of the petitioner that soon after his posting at the district of Dumka, his parents became sick and for looking after them, the petitioner tendered his resignation from the above post vide letter dated 30.09.2009, which was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad. Few months thereafter, when the health of his parents improved, the petitioner again applied for the post of Police Constable at Sahibganj and selected for the said post. Upon his selection, the petitioner given his joining to the post of Constable at Sahibganj and his brass number was 384. Thereafter, the petitioner was discharging his duties diligently and sincerely. However, to his utter shock and surprise, on an omnibus complaint by some unknown person, a letter dated 10.01.2010 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad to the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj seeking information with respect to appointment of petitioner to the post of Police Constable at Sahibganj. Subsequently, an FIR being Borio P.S. Case No. 19 of 2010 was also lodged against the petitioner under Sections 467/467/471/420 of IPC.

4. On the basis of aforesaid FIR, a departmental proceeding bearing No. 15/2010 was initiated against the petitioner and vide memo No. 464 dated 27.02.2010, the petitioner was served with a charge-memo alleging therein that the petitioner, while working in the Dhanbad Zila Bal, has got appointed in the Sahebganj Zila Bal without any notice and permission and has withdrawn salary from two districts simultaneously by committing fraud and cheating. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation to the charges levelled against him within a week. Upon receipt of the said show-cause, the petitioner submitted his reply on 17.05.2010 before the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj denying each and every charges levelled again him and pleaded himself to be innocent and not guilty. The petitioner against submitted his written statement on 25.10.2010 before the Presiding Officer and reiterated the defence earlier taken by him before the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj. The Presiding Officer perused the charge-sheet, written statements submitted by the petitioner, the depositions made by the witnesses and the other documents in detailed and observed that on 30.09.2009, the petitioner sent his resignation letter to the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad through Registered Police. In his resignation letter, petitioner submitted that due to being only son of his old aged parents, it is not possible for him to serve the respondent-Department at Dhanbad. The Presiding Officer further observed that the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad has already ordered for recovery of the two months’ salary which the petitioner has withdrawn believing to be arrears of his salary.

5. The Presiding Officer, upon perusal of the charge-sheet, written statements of the petitioner, the depositions made by the witnesses and other documents on record,