IMPORTANT POINT
The Superintendent of Police is authorized to issue charge-sheets and initiate disciplinary proceedings against subordinate officers, and such proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, with the disciplinary authority being the sole judge of the facts involved.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard the parties.

Prayers made

2. Petitioner has assailed the order of punishment contained in Memo No. 698 dated 22.04.2015 (Annexure-16) issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 2), in Departmental Proceeding no. 68/2011 as also the appellate order contained in Memo No. 417/D dated 16.11.2016, passed by respondent No. 1, by which the petitioner has been removed from service with a rider that pension and other retiral benefits would be decided in accordance with the Rules and upon Appeal the order of punishment has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

Petitioner has also prayed that after quashment of the aforesaid orders, directions be issued to respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

Factual Matrix

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the respondent No. 2 instituted an FIR being Vishnugarh P.S. Case No. 114/2011 against the petitioner, who was the then A.S.I. of the said Police Station, alleging therein that on 17.11.2011, when the respondent No. 2 was at his residence, the petitioner came to his house and started abusing him. Upon hearing the noise, when the respondent No. 2 opened the door of house, the petitioner opened fire upon him however, somehow he could manage to save his life and hurriedly closed the door and informed about incident to his Superior Officers. Thereafter, upon hearing the sound of fire, the Munshi and other Police Officers came to the house of respondent No. 2. On the basis of aforesaid written statement, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner.

4. It is the case of petitioner that for the same set of charges, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated and petitioner was asked to submit his reply. In response to which the petitioner submitted his reply. However, being not satisfied with reply of the petitioner the Enquiry Officer started the departmental proceeding and after hearing the parties and perusing the evidences both oral as well as documentary came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. Thereafter, petitioner was issued 2nd show-cause asking his reply to which the petitioner promptly replied denying the charges levelled against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, passed the order of punishment dated 22.04.2015 whereby he has been removed from services with a rider that pension and other retiral benefits would be paid to him in accordance with law.

5. The petitioner challenged the order of punishment before the Appellate Authority but during the pendency of instant writ petition, the same also stood dismissed as time barred. As such, petitioner challenged the Appellate Order dated 16.11.2016 by way of I.A. No. 8511 of 2016 and the said interlocutory application was allowed by this Court and petitioner was permitted to incorporate proposed amendment in the writ application.

Since the Appellate Authority has also not considered the case of petitioner and affirmed the order of punishment hence, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

6. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that only issue involved in this writ petition which invites attention of the Court is as to whether the charge-sheet has been issued by the Competent Authority or not?

7. Learned counsel confines his argument to that extent and submits that impugned orders as well as the entire departmental proceeding vitiates on the ground that charge-sheet has not been issued by the Competent Authority. It has been argued that the petitioner, who was an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, his appointing authority as per the provisions of Jharkhand Police Manual is the Deputy Inspector General of Police and not the Superintendent of Police. It has been further argued that as per the law laid down