Judgment:
ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the order dated 31st January, 1998, issued by Superintendent of Police (Rail), Dhanbad, whereby, he has been dismissed from service. He has also challenged the appellate order dated 20th July, 1998, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Railway Zone, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the order of dismissal was affirmed and the appeal, preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
2. The case of the petitioner is that a charge-sheet was served on him on 26th March, 1997. Three unfounded and baseless charges of different period were brought against him. One of them was of 28th December, 1995, the second was of 27th July, 1996 and the last one was of 15th August, 1996. He submitted the show cause reply before the enquiry officer, denying the allegations and raising the aforesaid objections. After enquiry, the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Dhanbad, issued a show cause notice to him vide Memo No. 1871/Go. dated 27th December, 1997 and on receipt of the show cause reply, dismissed him from service vide impugned Memo No. 38/Go. dated 31st January, 1998. The appeal was also rejected on 20th July, 1998.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that he filed a Memorial before the Director General of Police on 21st August, 1998 but the result of Memorial was not conveyed to him. However, in the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken plea that the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, after due consideration, rejected the Memorial vide Memo No. 4968/P-2 dated 7th August, 1999, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit.
4. According to the petitioner, the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of the rules of natural justice. The prosecution witnesses were examined behind the back of the petitioner, without informing the date of their examinations. Neither any date for examination of defence witness was fixed nor intimated to the petitioner. And several miscellaneous charges of two years were combined together for decision in one departmental proceeding, which is not permissible as per Appendix 49 of the Police Manual.
5. The respondents have disputed the aforesaid allegation. It is stated that a notice was issued by the conducting officer on 27th April, 1997 for appearance of the prosecution witnesses and the delinquent at Dhanbad Government Railway Police Station on the date of crime meeting of Superintendent of Police (Rail), Dhanbad. The crime meeting was held on 8th May, 1997 on which date the prosecution witnesses appeared and subsequently examined but the delinquent did not turn up and, as such, the prosecution witnesses were not examined in his presence. Thus, he did not receive the copy of the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
6. Copy of the notice dated 27th April, 1997, issued by the enquiry officer, has been enclosed as Annexure C to the counter affidavit. It is a vague one. No date of hearing has been fixed in it and it has been simply mentioned that the charged employee and his friends are to appear on the date of crime meeting of Superintendent of Police (Rail), Dhanbad. It does not show that the crime meeting of Superintendent of Police (Rail), Dhanbad, was to be held on 8th May, 1997. There is nothing on the record to suggest that even the notice dated 27th April, 1997 was served on the petitioner. Thereby it is clear that the four prosecution witnesses were examined on 8th May, 1997 behind the back of petitioner in violation of the rules of natural justice, without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner.
7. Altogether three charges were levelled against the petitioner, relating to in-subordination, indiscipline, dereliction of duties etc. The copy of the enquiry report dated 15th November, 1997 has been enclosed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. From plain reading of the enquiry report, it would be evident that the enquiry officer even did not bothered to cite the allegations nor the statements of the witnesses were discussed. It is merely stated that the allegation against the petitioner is of in-subordination, indiscipline, dereliction of duties etc., which has been proved from the statements of the witnesses 'A, B, C'. The enquiry report is not in accordance with law and not at all based on any evidence to hold the petitioner guilty.
8. In the aforesaid background, the enquiry having been conducted in violation of the rules of natural justice and the report of the enquiry officer not being in accordance with law, not based on evidence, the order of dismissal can not be upheld.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, without discussing the other grounds, as raised by the counsel for the petitioner, the order of dismissal dated 31st January, 1998, issued by the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Dhanbad, is set aside and the appellate order dated 20th July, 1998, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Railway Zone, Ranchi, as also the order passed in Memorial by the Director General of Police, as contained in Memo No. 4968/P-2 dated 7th August, 1999, affirming the illegal order of dismissal, are also set aside. However, it will be open to the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, if permissible.
Taking into consideration the fact that the case is pending before this Court since long and there is no laches on the part of any of the parties, this Court allows only 50% salary of the intervening period in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and direction. However, there will be no order as to costs.