Judgment:
ORDER
A.K. Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.10.2002 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Modernization and Provisions), Jharkhand whereby the petitioner was awarded the punishment of reduction in rank from the post of Sub-Inspector (Wireless Supervisor) Wireless Operation to the post of Assistant Wireless Sub-Inspector (Wireless Operation) for a period of one year. It has also sought further order or direction commanding upon the respondent to make payment of petitioner's salary for the period under which he was kept under suspension by deducting the subsistence allowance as paid and other consequential benefits.
2. The facts, in brief, as stated by the petitioner is set out as under:
The petitioner was appointed as literate Constable in the Police Department on 31.10.1971. He was given promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector Supervisor (Wireless Operation) on 1.7.1975 and was confirmed on 1.7.1996. The petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet vide memo No. 953 dated 12.7.2001 by the respondent No. 2 for committing serious irresponsibility and for not behaving like a person holding the post of Sub-Inspector and further for absconding to his native place which amounted to dereliction of duty. As per the charge-sheet while the petitioner was posted as Supervisor V.H.F. district Godda he was given in Salary Squad on 8.6.2001 and has brought two wireless sets to headquarter workshop for repairing. One Mr. Shankar Prasad Yadav, literate constable operation, was also with him. The charges against the petitioner was that the petitioner had deputed Assistant Sub-Inspector Operation Somra Uraon to the headquarter workshop to bring the repaired wireless sets and he also accompanied him and left Godda for Ranchi headquarter workshop but on the ground of sudden illness he left Somra Uraon alone and went to village Shikargarh in the district of Bhagalpur and allowed Somra Uraon to go to Ranchi alone as wireless sets Squad. Subsequently the petitioner on 28.6.2001 sent a wireless message from Dhanbad that both the repaired wireless sets were stolen away and he has loaded an FIR under Section 379, IPC at Jasidih G.R.P. being case No. 9/2001 dated 27.6.2001. The petitioner gave his reply to the show cause denying the charges. He further stated that he was not on Salary Squad duty on 8.5.2001 rather Sub-Inspector Supervisor Jaldhar Das and Assistant Sub-Inspector Michal Tudu were given Salary Squad duty from Godda to Ranchi. According to the petitioner when he along with Somra Uraon left Godda for Ranchi to bring the wireless set on 21.6.2001 after entering the same in logbook he boarded on a bus from Godda and it was a hot summer season and the petitioner felt severe headache and fever and became restless and was forced to discontinue his journey to take immediate treatment. He has also submitted that he instructed Sri Somra Uraon to take the wireless sets from headquarter workshop and immediately return to Godda with one competent staff asking his deputation from Inspector (Technical) as two persons are necessary in the wireless squad. It is further stated that Somra Uraon returned to Godda VHF control room without wireless sets and upon enquiry he narrated that while he was coming back from headquarter workshop, Ranchi with two repaired wireless sets he took a cup of tea on train between Dhanbad and Madhupur Station and felt intoxicated and later on lost his senses. He also submitted that when he regained consciousness wireless sets with the bag was missing and on coming to know about it the petitioner lodged the case with GRP Police Station, Jasidih regarding the incident. After completion of the enquiry report was submitted and punishment was recommended accordingly. The disciplinary authority issued the second show cause notice to him on 5.8.2002 to which he filed his reply. The Deputy Inspector General on consideration of the reply to the second show cause finally awarded the punishment of reduction of rank of Sub-Inspector Wireless Supervisor (Wireless Operation) to the post of Assistant Wireless Sub-Inspector (Wireless Operation) for a period of one year. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order before this Hon'ble Court.
3. The respondents have submitted that the petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty and negligence since he was a Supervisor along with the ASI and further the respondents submit that the petitioner absconded without any information and left the place of duty. He further submitted that a detail departmental enquiry was held and the enquiry report was submitted recommending punishment and even the second show cause reply was considered and full opportunity was granted and thereafter the DIG gave the punishment which was commensurate to the charges.
4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that one Somra Uraon has been already punished for the charges for theft and negligence and thus, he could not have been punished. It has further been submitted that the entire action was arbitrary and illegal and violative of the prescribed rules, circular and policy decision. He has further submitted that he was innocent and has been punished for no fault and thus, the entire action is illegal, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. I have gone through the entire pleadings, submissions and arguments and at the very outset I find that full opportunity in compliance with the cardinal principles of natural justice as required in a departmental proceeding was given to the petitioner. The punishment inflicted was pursuant to a detailed enquiry and recommendation of the enquiry report followed by second show cause notice and then the appropriate punishment was inflicted which cannot be said to be disproportionate. The admitted fact remains that the petitioner gave no information and instead violated the directive that at least two wireless personnel should be deputed for wireless set squad duty. In spite of such directive he allowed Somra Uraon individually to proceed. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was negligent and his conduct amounted to dereliction of duty apart from the fact that the same was in violation to the directive issued by the department. Above all, even assuming but not admitting, he was sick or he fell sick he ought to have informed either to his place of deputation at Godda or at the headquarter at Ranchi which he miserably failed to do so and it was only when he got the information that the wireless sets were stolen he instituted a case and informed the headquarter. The petitioner was found guilty of the charges and accordingly punishment of reversion in rank for a period of one year was inflicted vide impugned order and the same was based on appreciation of evidence in the departmental proceedings. In a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even otherwise this Hon'ble High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence.
6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above this writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.