Judgment:
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The petitioner, who was a police constable, has been dismissed from service after a departmental proceeding by an order as contained in Annexure-8, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga holding that the charges against the petitioner was established. Even the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner against his dismissal from service has been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi vide his order dated 29/05/2004, contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application.
2. These are the two orders, which are under challenge in this writ application.
3. While the petitioner was posted at Lohardaga in the year 2001, a criminal case was instituted against him and two others at the instance of one Jhirgi Oraine wherein she alleged that the petitioner committed rape on her on several occasions on false pretext of marriage. The case was registered under Section 376, 417 and 120 B IPC. The petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 26/05/2001 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was directed to file his show cause.
4. The enquiry report was submitted on 28/10/2002 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. According to the petitioner, in the departmental proceeding he was not given sufficient opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The petitioner further alleges that his show cause was not considered by the Enquiry Officer in his inquiry report.
5. As it appears that the petitioner has also been convicted in the criminal case lodged against him by the Additional District 8s Sessions Judge, Gumla vide judgment dated 07/12/2004. An appeal against the said conviction and sentence is pending before this Court in which the petitioner has been granted bail. It further appears that prior to passing the order of dismissal a second show cause notice was also given to the petitioner but he did not chose to submit any show cause.
6. Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the show cause filed by the petitioner has not considered by the Inquiry Officer and he was also not given sufficient opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses, examined during the enquiry. She further submitted that the appellate authority did not apply his mind and has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by a non-speaking order. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has not been given the subsistence allowance for the period he was put under suspension.
7. The enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer has been annexed as Annexure-7 to this writ petition. From perusal of which, it appears that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses but he failed to cross-examine them. Whenever the witnesses were produced during the enquiry, the petitioner always remained absent and, therefore, it is wrong to say that he was not accorded reasonable or sufficient opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses. As a matter of fact, he absented himself and did not choose to cross-examine the witnesses. From the enquiry report it also appears that the show cause filed by the petitioner has been fully considered.
8. From perusal of the impugned orders, contained in Annexure- 8 and 9, i.e. the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority, I find that both the authorities have fully applied their minds and on consideration of the evidence and materials on record as well as the statement of the witnesses adduced in the departmental proceeding have held the petitioner guilty for the charges.
9. On careful scrutiny of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority, contained in Annexure-8 and 9, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The charge against the petitioner was very grave and, therefore, the punishment awarded to him also does not appear to be disproportionate.
For the reasons stated herein above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
10. So far as the payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, certainly the petitioner is entitled to the same for the period he was put under suspension and, if the same has not yet been paid to him, the same must be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.