THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DIG), PURNEA DIISIN v. PURNEA, DISTRICT PURNEA
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14000 of 2008 ====================================================== SAROJ KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI RAM CHANDRA KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOKHALE NAGAR BISHNUPUR, POLICE STATION BALIA DISTRICT BEGUSARAI .... .... Petitioner/s 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DIG), PURNEA DIISIN Versus PURNEA, DISTRICT PURNEA 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PURNEA, DISTRICT PURNEA 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, BAYASI, DISTRICT PURNEA. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Thakur Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 10-12-2013 The petitioner prays for quashing office order dated 30.4.2006, passed by respondent no.3 as well as order dated
Legal Reasoning
18.4.2008, passed by respondent no.2 affirming order of termination of the petitioner from the post of constable. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on two charges. The 1st charge was that one Karnal Jha @ Karunanidh, a co-accused of Sadar Police Station Case No. 17 of 2001 under section 364 IPC during his Purnea visit used to stay at the petitioner’s place. The 2nd charge is that the petitioner forcibly kept the house of one Smt Kamal Lata Singh, a principal of A.N.M. Training Centre Sadar Hospital, Purnea. The Enquiry officer on 14.9.2005 submitted his report to the Patna High Court CWJC No.14000 of 2008 (6) dt.10-12-2013 2/5 superior authority stating that sufficient materials are not on record for maintaining the proceeding. However afresh proceeding was started against the petitioner on the said very two charges. In respect of charge no.1, the prosecution relied on the statement of one Anirudh Prasad Sinha, the then DSP and one officer in charge of Maranga Post office. In respect of charge no.2 which is related to forcible occupation of house of one Smt Kamal Lata Singh, the prosecution relied upon her statement as well as some other documents with respect to sale and purchase. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The Superintendent of Police, Purnea agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer awarded him punishment of termination from service. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the DIG, Purnea range which too was dismissed. The petitioner assailed the impugned order as well as the enquiry proceeding. The petitioner submits that there was no occasion to initiate 2nd enquiry proceeding. He next submits that there was scant evidence to convict the petitioner holding him guilty. Mrs. Binita Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that due reason has been assigned for starting fresh proceeding. In this respect, she refers to Annexure A to the counter affidavit. Patna High Court CWJC No.14000 of 2008 (6) dt.10-12-2013 3/5 I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The petitioner has challenged the 2nd proceeding as non maintainable on the ground that after submission of 1st enquiry report there was no occasion before the authorities for initiating 2nd proceeding. I find that sufficient reason has been given by the respondents for starting 2nd proceeding. The charges have been assailed on the ground of insufficiency and unreliable evidence produced during enquiry. Generally this court would not go into the thin and thickets of the proceeding and would confine itself whether the proceeding has been conducted in accordance with law. Charge no.1 is that the petitioner allowed one Karnal Jha @ Karunanidh, a co-accused of Sadar Police Station Case No. 17 of 2001 under section 364 IPC to stay at his place whenever he came to Purnea in stead of handing him over to the local police. I find that the respondents have examined one witness,
Legal Reasoning
namely, Sri Anirudh Prasad Sinha, DSP-2, Purnea in support of the case. Said witness is not himself an eye witness of the occurrence. In my view, reliance on only this piece of evidence for the purpose of holding one guilty would stand on slippery ground. As such, I am inclined to grant benefit of doubt and hold Patna High Court CWJC No.14000 of 2008 (6) dt.10-12-2013 4/5 that there is no basic material for upholding the charge. The 2nd charge relates to forcible occupation of premises of one Kamal Lata Singh. The lady stated in her evidence that she purchased the house in question in the year 1988 through a sale deed for consideration of Rs. 40,000/-; the date of registration is 9.2.1990 and mutation was done in the year 1999. She has been staying in the said house since 1989-90 after constructing three rooms. She got electric connection in the year 1989-90. Soon thereafter on transfer she went to Gopalganj. The petitioner has tired to rebut the stand of Kamal Lata Singh on the premises that in fact she agreed to sell the said premises and as later she turned back on her commitment. A criminal case, namely, Maranga Police Station Case No. 229 of 1999 was also instituted. It is well settled that the yard stick of proof in departmental proceeding is distinct from the standard of proof adopted in the enquiry in a criminal proceeding. The occupant Kamal Lata Singh has supported her case in her deposition before enquiry officer and has placed reliance on documents. Thus I find that the respondents have not erred in coming to the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the said charge. As I find that one of the charges i.e. charge no.1, does not stand proved, the matter is remitted to the respondents for fresh Patna High Court CWJC No.14000 of 2008 (6) dt.10-12-2013 5/5 consideration on quantum of punishment within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The impugned order terminating the service of the petitioner is set aside. The position as standing prior to dismissal is restored. The petitioner would appear before the respondents as and when required. The petitioner would be at liberty to file representation before the respondents with respect of his claims. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)