Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18748 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Jhona Devi, wife of late Ramkrit Sharma. 2. Amarjeet Shandil, son of late Ramkrit Sharm. Both residents of village-Bhawanpur, P.S.-Tekari, District-Gaya. Versus .... .... Petitioners. 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. Inspector General of Police, Provision and Budget, Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shabad Range, Dehri-On-Sone, District-Rohtas (Sasaram). 5. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, AC to GA-III ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 02 21-06-2013 The two petitioners in this writ petition are the widow and the son of late Ramkrit Sharma, who was constable in Bihar Police. Late Ramkrit Sharma had joined the service in the year 1982. It appears that pursuant to a departmental proceeding as initiated against the said Ramkrit Sharma who was found guilty and dismissed, which dismissal order was not interfered in appeal nor in the memorial filed by him thereafter. It may be noted that while the memorial was pending consideration before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, Ramkrit Sharma died on
Decision
31.08.2008. Hence, the writ petition by the widow and the son. Pleadings being complete, with consent of parties, Patna High Court CWJC No.18748 of 2008 (02) dt.21-06-2013 - 2 - this writ petition has been finally heard for disposal at this stage itself. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that for the incident in question a criminal case was also instituted. In the criminal case, the Criminal Court by judgment and order dated 03rdof December, 1999 acquitted the employee holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge. The judgment is Annexure-1, which clearly shows that the informant, who had been examined as a prosecution witness, being P.W.3, though supported the incident, had failed to identify the employee as the person who had perpetuated the brutal assault in any manner. Thus, the Criminal Court came to a finding that the very involvement of the employee was not established. He was, accordingly, acquitted. For the same occurrence departmental proceedings were initiated and charges framed against the said employee. The enquiry report has been annexed. In the enquiry report, it is noticed that various persons were noticed to appear on behalf of the Department including the informant on whose allegation the proceedings were initiated but none appeared. The Inquiry Officer still submitted a report adverse to the said employee on the basis of the original complaint. The supervision Patna High Court CWJC No.18748 of 2008 (02) dt.21-06-2013 - 3 - note and the charge-sheet in the criminal case as against the said employee on basis thereof the said employee was dismissed from service. As noted above, the appeal and memorial were dismissed. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that seen the records of the proceedings both of the criminal case and the departmental proceeding two things will appear. Firstly, both were based on the same allegation and second in both the proceedings there was no evidence brought on record to implicate the said employee. In the criminal case, the very informant, on whose allegations the proceedings were initiated, failed to turn up to depose at all. On the basis of aforesaid, it is submitted that this is a case of no evidence and no material. Learned counsel for the State relies on the complaint as made at the earliest the police supervision note in course of criminal investigation and the charge-sheet as filed. In my view, these materials loose significance or relevance. They are not corroborated much less by the informant himself in the criminal case though sticks by the allegation. He does not identify the petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime. Thus, the very foundation for implicating the said employee becomes non est in the departmental proceedings. The informant Patna High Court CWJC No.18748 of 2008 (02) dt.21-06-2013 - 4 - does not even appear. Materials like the supervision note or the charge-sheet may even good materials for initiating the proceedings but they cannot be materials for taking action unless they are proved. The very supervision note stands falsified or negatived in view of the judgment in the trial. It is not that the said employee was given benefit of doubt by the Criminal Court. Thus, to say that there was material to justify this extreme punishment in the departmental proceeding is not correct. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot but be found that there was no material. Department cannot wash away the evidence of P.W.3 in the criminal case whereby he does not identify the said employee as the perpetrator of the crime. If that be so that the gravaman of the charge as against the said employee in the departmental proceedings collapses. That being so, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the order of dismissal was wrong as there was no material to justify the said decision. That being so, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and, accordingly, the appellate order and the order rejecting memorial has also to be set aside. The effect would be that it would be deemed that the said employee late Ramkrit Sharma would be deemed to be in service and died without dismissal order being there. If the date of his death is prior to his Patna High Court CWJC No.18748 of 2008 (02) dt.21-06-2013 - 5 - date of superannuation in normal course then it would be deemed that he died in harness and necessary consequential action would have to be taken by the authorities in that regard. If date of death is after his regular superannuation, which does not appear to be the case, the petitioners would be entitled to all consequential reliefs as such including payments of retiral dues. The respondents are directed to give effect to the judgment of this Court within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the authority concerned. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)