The main legal point established is the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, emphasizing the need for adherence to natural justice principles and the requirement for procedural errors leading to manifest injustice for court interference.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for quashing of the Office Order dated 26.09.2012 whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service with effect from a retrospective date.

Further, prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 20.12.2013, whereby the respondents have modified the order of dismissal to compulsory retirement.

Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service of Jharkhand Police Force from the date of dismissal from service i.e. w.e.f. 08.04.2006 and respondents be directed to grant promotion to the petitioner to the rank of ASI and SI of Police for which he had been entitled to during his service period.

The respondents may further be directed to pay the entire outstanding dues of salary as per entitlement with all consequential benefits as may be found to be payable upon his reinstatement in the service.

2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner while posted as constable in the office of the Sr. S.P. Ranchi, the Confidential Reader of the office of the Sr. S.P. has informed that on 29.04.2006 at 18:55 hours the petitioner refused to receive the order and thereafter, on 30.04.2006, he again refused to receive the command which was sent to him through Special Messenger, Arjun Prasad Yadav. For the aforesaid act of the petitioner, the Sr. S.P. Ranchi vide District Order No. 1804/2006 dated 13.05.2006 held up the salary of the petitioner and further directed him to appear in the office. When the petitioner did not join his duty for a long time, the Sr. S.P. Ranchi vide memo No. 3913 dated 17.08.2006 directed the petitioner to join his duty otherwise strict action shall be taken against him. The said order was sent to the home address of the petitioner through Registered Post but the same was returned back undelivered. Inspite of the aforesaid information to the petitioner he did not join his duty and therefore, the Sr. S.P. Ranchi vide memo No. 4651 dated 08.10.2006 issued charge memo against the petitioner for gross indiscipline, dereliction of duty, negligence and absconding from duty but the petitioner did not submit any explanation.

3. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the Conducting Officer vide memo No. 552 dated 11.06.2017, memo dated 27.06.2007, memo No. 665 dated 18.07.2007 and memo No. 792 dated 25.08.2007 directed the petitioner to participate in the departmental proceeding and submit his defence statement. In spite of several communication, the petitioner neither submitted his defence nor participated in the departmental proceeding. Therefore, the Conducting Officer recorded the statement of witnesses in his absence and directed the petitioner to submit his final defence otherwise the proceeding will be concluded ex-parte but he did not turn-up and submit any defence statement. Hence, the Conducting Officer upon and conclusion of the departmental proceeding found the charges levelled against the petitioner true and hence, submitted his enquiry report to that effect.

4. The Disciplinary Authority agreeing with findings of the Conducting Officer, issued 2nd show-cause notice to the petitioner to submit his explanation against the proposed punishment but the petitioner failed to submit his reply. Thereafter, the Sr. S.P. Ranchi again vide memo dated 29.08.2012 directed the petitioner to submit his explanation within 30 days failing which he will be dismissed from service. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation before the Sr. S.P. Ranchi which has been received in the office of the Sr. S.P. Ranchi on 11.09.2012. The Disciplinary Authority after going through the findings of the Conducting Officer, records of the case and the explanation submitted by the petitioner, found him guilty of the charges levelled against him and passed order of dismissal vide memo dated 26.09.2012 and the said order was personally served to the petitioner which