Dismissal based on vague charges without substantial evidence violates the principles of natural justice; strict adherence to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings is mandated.

ORDER :

Ananda Sen, J.

Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-

i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) quashing the order dated 24/06/2017, issued vide memo No.2793 by the Superintendant of Police, Deoghar, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service.

ii. Be further pleased to quash the appellate order dated 06/03/2019 issued vide memo No.642 by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka, whereby the order of dismissal dated 24/06/2017 passed by the Superintendant of Police, Deoghar has been affirmed.

iii. Be further pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits, including back wages.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable (Constable No. 218) in the Jharkhand Police in the year 2010. While being posted at Deoghar, the petitioner was put under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar vide memo No.1386 dated 27.05.2016, on the basis of information of the Officer-in-Charge, Town Police Station, that the Petitioner along with Tinku Kumar, Sumit Kumar Das and the Animal Smuggler, were giving information about the movement of Police and were providing protection to the vehicle of the animal traffickers in safely going out of Deoghar City and in lieu thereof they were charging Rs.1000/- per vehicle. Subsequently, vide memo No.1746 dated 02.07.2016 (District Order No.2240/2016 dated 29.06.2016), the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar revoked the suspension of the petitioner. Memo of charge under memo No.2122 dated 16.08.2016 was issued to the petitioner, alleging therein as aforesaid. It was also mentioned that in enquiry of the Inspector-cum-Officer in Charge, it had come that the petitioner was also involved. Petitioner was asked to submit his show cause reply within a week. Petitioner on 27.10.2016, had submitted his reply, wherein he categorically denied each of the charges leveled against him and he also prayed to drop the charges and to close the proceeding against him. Thereafter a Departmental Proceeding No.25/16 was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, on 25.05.2017 had submitted the enquiry report, wherein he found the charges against the petitioner as proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide memo No.2793 dated 24.06.2017 communicated the final order vide D.O. No.1485/17 passed in the Departmental Proceeding No.25/16, whereby and whereunder punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka Region, Dumka. The Appellate Authority vide order No.566/19 communicated through Memo No.642 dated 06.03.2019 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Challenging the order of dismissal as also the appellate order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the departmental enquiry only three witnesses were examined, out of whom two witnesses were formal witnesses whereas the other witness was the Officer, who had given information vide memo No.1593/2016 dated 17.05.2016 to the Superintendent of Police about the petitioner and others. He argued that in the departmental proceeding, nothing had surfaced to substantiate the charge against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has heavily relied on Memo No.1593/2016 dated 17.05.2016 whereas neither the so called Md. Sheru nor any truck driver was examined to s