Anjani Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3704 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                 W.P.(S) No. 5227 of 2015

                Anjani Kumar Tiwari, S/o Prof Dr. Dharam Raj Tiwary, R/o Marafari,
                P.S., P.O.: Siwandi, P.S. : Marafari, District - Bokaro, Jharkhand;
                                                               ...     ...      Petitioner
                                           Versus
                1. State of Jharkhand
                2. Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand,
                   Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S. : Dhurwa, District -
                   Ranchi, Jharkhand;
                3. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Coal Range), Jharkhand
                   Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. - Bokaro, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand
                4. Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. : Bokaro, District -
                   Ranchi, Jharkhand
                5. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.
                   Bokaro, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand...          ...       Respondents
                                           ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

                For the Petitioner      : Mr. Niladri Shekhar Mukherji, Advocate
                For the Respondents     : None
                                        ---
12/14.09.2022         Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

"For quashing of the order dated 28.04.2015 vide Memo No.3726/Bokaro passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e., Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, (Resp. No.4) and the order dated 02.09.2015 vide Memo No.932/Go passed by the Appellate Authority i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police (Coal Range), Jharkhand, Bokaro (Resp. No.3) and conveyed to the Petitioner vide Memo No.5621/Ra-ka dated 08.09.2015 whereby and whereunder petitioner has been inflicted by imposing three fold punishment of (i) stoppage increments for six months equal to one time stoppage, (ii) no payment of anything additional than what has been paid during the period of suspension and (iii) approval of the stigmatic recommendation and finding of the I.O. which is quit contradictory to the statements of the two eye witnesses."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to para 21 of the writ petition to submit that the illegalities / irregularities as pointed out in the said paragraph has been committed by the respondents in the present case on account of which the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner upon a query by this Court has submitted that he has not annexed the copy of the memo of appeal for perusal by this Court. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the enquiry report is dated 28.04.2015 and

the petitioner had filed a final explanation-cum-defense in connection with the enquiry proceedings vide letter dated 17.04.2015 before the enquiry officer. From perusal of page 48 of the writ petition, it appears that a copy of the deposition was handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner refused to ask any question.

5. Arguments concluded.

6. Post this case for judgment on 28.11.2022.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav