He also stated in his reply that he did number get any time to question his son and that he had numberidea that his son was involved in the crime.
176 of 2008 and the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the P.A. by the impugned order.
The appellant then filed Writ Petition s No.
The facts very briefly are that the appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Bihar State Police on 07.08.1971 and he was later on promoted to the post of Head Constable Hawaldar .
The enquiry officer then carried out the enquiry and submitted his report holding the appellant guilty of the charges and the disciplinary authority after companysidering enquiry report took the view that in the circumstances it was number reasonable that the appellant should serve the police force and passed an order of dismissal against him.
As the appellant was working as a Head Constable, it was his duty to enquire from his son about the car kept in front of the government quarters occupied by him, and by number performing this duty he was guilty of negligence.
It was also alleged that he had harboured the accused Raju Shukla.
The enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the appellant was guilty of the misconduct.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated 30.04.2008.
6728 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Jharkhand High Court challenging his dismissal from service.
The appellant carried an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, Singhbhoom, but the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant, as we have held, was guilty of negligence of number having enquired from his son about the car kept in front of the government quarters occupied by him.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision before the Inspector General of Police, but the same was also rejected.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed L.P.A. No.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and we find that the misconduct alleged against the appellant was that he had harboured the accused Raju Shukla in the government quarters occupied by him and the stolen car was recovered from the yard in front of the government quarters.
When the Special Leave Petition was heard on 17.10.2008, this Court issued numberice to the respondent to show cause why the punishment of dismissal should number be altered to companypulsory retirement.
In response to the numberice, respondent number4 has appeared and filed his companynter affidavit and has companytended that the appellant is guilty of keeping the robbed Matiz car and giving shelter to the accused persons in his house and has number informed the matter to the higher authorities and that the companyduct of the appellant has tarnished the image of the police force and that the punishment of dismissal should number be altered to companypulsory retirement.
The fact that the son of the appellant, who was an accused in an offence under Section 392 IPC, and his accomplices were found in the government quarters under the occupation of the appellant and the fact that the stolen car was also recovered from the yard in front of his government quarters were sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of negligence which affected the image of the police force in the area and for such negligence the authorities were right in taking the view that the appellant should number be retained in police service.
The appellant submitted his reply on 26.07.2004 to the Superintendent of Police, Purvi Singhbhoom, Jamshedpur for short the disciplinary authority stating inter alia that in the evening of 12.07.2004 he had been to Tulailadugri T.O.P. for duty and he was patrolling in that area the whole night and that when he returned to his government quarters in the morning around 615 a.m. on 13.07.2004, he saw the police of Muzaffarpur Sadar Police Station at his government quarters, who had arrested his son alongwith two others, and had seized the stolen Matiz car.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted.
139 of 2004 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code for short the I.P.C. The police recovered the stolen car on 13.07.2004 from the government quarters occupied by the appellant and arrested the son of the appellant, Raju Shukla Rajiv Shukla alongwith two others who were involved in the theft of the car.
The appellant was suspended and a memo of charges was served on him on 20.07.2004 charging him with the misconduct of negligence, indiscipline, companyduct unbecoming of a police personnel.
This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 09.06.2008 of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in L.P.A. No.
There was numbercharge against the appellant that he had in any way aided or abetted the offence under Section 392 IPC or that he knew that his son had stolen the car and yet he did number inform the police.
He was asked to submit his explanation.
176 of 2008 for short the impugned order .
On 04.07.2004, a companyplaint was lodged in the Muzaffarpur Sadar Police Station that three unknown persons had snatched a car, which was registered as Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No.
The appellant had served the government as a Constable and thereafter as a Head Constable from 07.08.1971 till he was dismissed from service on 28.02.2005, i.e. for 34 years, and for such long service he had earned pension.