Judicial review of disciplinary actions is confined to legality and procedural fairness, without substituting the authority's discretion unless there is clear injustice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. The Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7487 of 2012 of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed.

3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner has filed the instant appeal.

4. The parties shall be referred to as they were before the learned writ Court.

5. The petitioner approached the writ Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 05.01.2012 whereby and whereunder the respondent No.4 (Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police) had imposed the punishment of forfeiture of two years’ increment with cumulative effect. This order of punishment was thereafter affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority.

6. The brief facts which led into filing of the instant appeal, are that the petitioner while undergoing training at Jharkhand Armed Police Force, 1^st Battalion, Ranchi for the Senior Promotion Course (SPC), he applied for grant of leave which was forwarded to respondent No.4. Subsequently, the petitioner again gave an application for leave to the Incharge of Doranda Police Station and when the leave was not granted, the petitioner handed over the leave application to the media persons which led to news items being published in two Hindi daily newspapers i.e. Dainik Bhaskar, Ranchi edition dated 30^th April, 2011 and the Ranchi edition of Prabhat Khabar dated 30^th April, 2011. As regards the Dainik Bhaskar it was published under the caption ^^cgu dh 'kknh ds fy, NqV~Vh ekax jgs tSi ds toku us dgk NqV~Vh nks] ugha rks ns nsaxs tku^^ and in Prabhat Khabar it was published under the caption ^^teknkj us flikgh dks ihVk^^-

7. The respondents after coming across the news items felt that the news items tarnished the image of the Police Department and accordingly, the Chief Instructor wrote a letter to the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-I dated 30^th April, 2011 and the Commandant, in turn, set up an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer and framed charges against the petitioner and thereafter issued chargsheet to the petitioner.

8. The petitioner replied to the same and finding the reply not to be satisfactory the Departmental Proceeding No. 5/2011 came to be initiated against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority.

9. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of charges.

10. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report as well as the misconduct of the appellant, passed the order of punishment dated 05.01.2012 thereby ordering withholding of one increment for two years with cumulative effect.

11. The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi. The appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2012. The petitioner then preferred a revision application before the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi. However, even the revision also came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2012 constraining the petitioner to approach the writ Court.

12. The learned writ Court after taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the instant appeal.

13. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and revisional authority while imposing the penalty and thereafter affirming the same have ignored the provisions of JHARKHAND POLICE MANUAL Ru