Shanti Devi v. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Old Secretariat, Patna

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vishawanath Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Mrs. Bela Singh, Advocates. : Mr. Jaishankar Barnwal, S.C. 1 For the State ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 10-01-2012 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25th July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 8591 of 2004, one of the writ petitioners [the heirs and the legal representatives of the original writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the “delinquent”) who passed away pending the writ petition], has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1380 of 2011 (4) dt.10-01-2012 Patent. The matter at dispute the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the delinquent, a Police Inspector, by the Director General and Inspector General of Police under his order dated 29th May 2004. In a raid conducted by the Customs Department at the Police Barrack under the charge of the delinquent, contraband Ganja (narcotics) worth rupees more than thirty lakhs was recovered. Pursuant to the said recovery, a disciplinary action was initiated against the delinquent for being remiss in discharge of his duty. After holding due enquiry the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of withholding of two increments. The said order of punishment was taken into suo motu review by the Director General and Inspector General of Police in exercise of power of review conferred under Rule 853A of the Police Manual. After giving reasons and after giving opportunity to show cause to the writ petitioner, the Director General and Inspector General of Police made the impugned order of punishment of compulsory retirement. The challenge to the said order of compulsory retirement in CWJC No. 8591 of 2004 has failed before the learned single Judge. Therefore, this Appeal. Learned counsel Mr. Vishawanath Prasad Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has raised two fold contentions. In the submission of Mr. Singh, the requisite procedure for imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement as envisaged by Rule 854A of the Police Manual has not been observed. The order of punishment is, therefore, vitiated. He has next contended that the punishment of compulsory retirement is too harsh and not commensurate the nature of guilt proved against the petitioner. 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1380 of 2011 (4) dt.10-01-2012 We are unable to agree with the contention raised by Mr. Singh. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was the Police Inspector Incharge and that the narcotics worth more than Rs. 30 lakhs was found in the Police Barrack under his supervision was, in our opinion, sufficiently grave to invite order of compulsory retirement from service. As to the procedure, we may observe that Rule 853A of the Police Manual vests power of suo motu review unto the Inspector General of Police. Rule 854A of the Police Manual deals with compulsory retirement under Rule 74(a) of the Bihar Service Code. Sub-Rule (5) thereof enjoins Police Department to send report concerning the review of the gazetted and non-gazetted officers to the Personnel Department of the Government twice a year. Sub Rule (6) thereof reads as under: awarding “For compulsory retirement as per rules given above, no departmental proceeding or a show cause is required but if a departmental proceeding has been initiated for any lapse of delinquent, compulsory awarded to him after show cause though he may not have completed 21 or 25 years of service.” retirement We may note here that the provisions made in Sub- Rule (6) deal with the general proposition of law in respect of compulsory/pre-mature retirement in public interest. Reference to the compulsory retirement by punishment has to be read in contradistinction with the compulsory retirement in public interest. That would mean that for compulsory retirement in public interest the law does not envisage a departmental proceeding or a show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing whereas for imposing punishment of compulsory retirement, an opportunity of representation or hearing is required. Thus, the said Rule cannot 4 Patna High Court LPA No.1380 of 2011 (4) dt.10-01-2012 be read to hold that in case of punitive compulsory retirement a separate show cause notice indicating the proposed punishment of compulsory retirement is required. The aforesaid Sub Rule 6, in our opinion, refers to the settled procedure envisaged for imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement. In the present case, a full-fledged departmental proceeding was held against the petitioner. At no point of time the petitioner had challenged the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. This pre-supposes that the petitioner had no complaint against the departmental procedure nor against the finding of guilt. For enhancement of punishment as envisaged by Rule 853A of the Police Manual, the Director General and Inspector General of Police gave detailed reasons for the need to enhance the punishment and also gave opportunity to show cause to the delinquent. In our opinion, the order of compulsory retirement was made against the petitioner after following due procedure. The learned single Judge has rightly rejected the challenge to the order of punishment. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Terminal benefits due to the petitioner, if any, may be remitted without further delay. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Sujit/-