Inspector General of Police, Bihar v. Patna
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11128 of 2007 ====================================================== 1. Kamla Singh son of Late Budhu Singh, resident of village –Sareja, P.S.-Rajpur, District-Buxar. 2. Ram Suresh Singh son of Hriday Narayan Singh, resident of village –Sareja, P.S.-Rajpur, District-Buxar. .... .... Petitioners 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Versus Patna. 3. Inspector General (Administration) of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Zone, Dehri-on-Sone. 5. Superintendent of Police, Buxar. 6. Commandant, Bihar Home-guard, Bhojpur, Ara. 7. District Magistrate, Buxar. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16168 of 2007 ====================================================== 1. Ramkesh Singh S/o of Late Sri Umanath Singh, resident of village – Khatiba, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar. 2. Sri Ram Singh S/o Sri Dharm Raj Singh, resident of village – Bhelupur, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar. 3. Angad Singh S/o Sri Ramchandra Singh, resident of village Bhelupur, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar. 4. Sardar Singh S/o Sri Bhagwan Singh, resident of village Bhelupur, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar.
Legal Reasoning
5. Vijay Narayan Singh S/o Sri Shiv Prasad Singh, resident of village Ekdarh, P.S. Rajpur, District Buxar. 6. Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Sri Teju Singh, resident of village Kharahana, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar. 7. Ajit Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shivshanker Pandey, resident of village Pandeypatti, P.S. Buxar(M), District Buxar. 8. Yogendra Chouhan S/o Late Aashpujan Chouhan, resident of village Basaon Khurd „Dera‟, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar. 9. Shiv Shanker Singh S/o Late Dhushan Singh, resident of village Bashudhar, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar. 10. Ramashanker Singh S/o Late Dhushan Singh resident of village Bashudhar, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar. 11. Lakshman Singh Yadav S/o Sri Sudama Singh resident of village Bashudhar, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar. 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Versus Patna. 3. Inspector General (Administration) of Police, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Petitioners Patna High Court CWJC No.11128 of 2007 (10) dt.22-01-2013 2 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Zone, Dehri-on-Sone. 5. Superintendent of Police, Buxar. 6. Superintendent of Police, Arwal. 7. Sunil Kumar, then Dy.S.P., Dumraon, S/o Late Chandrika Prasad, resident of village SRT- 27 Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadamkuan, Distt. Patna.
Decision
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== For the Petitioners : M/s B.K. Sinha and Digvijay Kumar Ojha, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rabindra Kr. Priyadarshi, AC to AAG-I ====================================================== P R E S E N T : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ORDER 10 22-01-2013 Both these writ petitions have been heard together as analogous cases and are being decided by this common order because the reliefs claimed by both sets of petitioners are exactly the same and the relevant facts involved are similar, whereas the respondents are also the same. 2. In the first writ petition there are two petitioners whereas in the second writ petition there are thirteen petitioners out of whom petitioner nos.5 and 7, namely Vijay Kumar Singh and Sukhlal Pandey respectively died during the pendency of these writ petitions. Hence as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners let the names of petitioner nos.5 and 7 of the second writ petition be expunged. 3.The reliefs claimed in the two writ petitions are exactly the same, which are as follows:- (i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 21.10.2006 of Superintendent of Police, Buxar whereby the petitioners have been removed/dismissed from service. Patna High Court CWJC No.11128 of 2007 (10) dt.22-01-2013 3 (ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing memo nos.3798/P2 (13/1/63-22) & 3798/P2 (13/1/63-99) both dated 22.08.2002 whereby Inspector General of Police (Administration) Bihar Patna Directed all the Deputy Inspector General of Police to remove the persons who have been appointed under special consideration. the (iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to continue with the services of the petitioners. (iv) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to follow the principle of natural justice and forebear from giving effect to the orders impugned. (v) For any other relief/reliefs the petitioners may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the cases. to which 4. It is not in dispute that all the aforesaid petitioners were Home-Guards and since they had shown exemplary courage in fighting with the criminals, their cases were considered by a committee duly constituted by the Director General of Police and they were appointed as police constables vide order dated 15.01.1998. Subsequently on 19.09.2003 the Superintendent of Police, Buxar intimated the petitioners that they had been removed from service on the basis of letter dated 21.11.2002 as well as letter dated 22.08.2002 issued by the Inspector General of Police (Administration) Bihar directing all the Deputy Inspector General of Police to remove the persons, who had been appointed under special considerations. Patna High Court CWJC No.11128 of 2007 (10) dt.22-01-2013 4 5. In the said circumstances all the aforesaid petitioners filed CWJC No.955 of 2004 challenging the aforesaid order of termination dated 19.09.2003 and in that case it was the specific claim of the respondents that petitioners could not have been appointed in the manner in which they had been appointed and the aforesaid impugned order was passed only after giving show-cause notice to the petitioners and after considering their explanation, hence the respondents contested the claim of petitioners. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties a Bench of this court decided the aforesaid CWJC No.955 of 2004 vide order dated 13.09.2005 and found that the petitioners were appointed by a duly constituted Board by the Director General of Police and it did not appear to be an appointment made by the Superintendent of Police of the District since the petitioners were appointed by a duly constituted Board and hence sufficient opportunities of hearing should have been given to the petitioners and in no way they could have been removed only after issuance of show-cause notice. It was also found that the show-cause notices sent to the petitioners were replied by them but the same was rejected in a most summary way i.e. without passing a speaking order. Furthermore, since the petitioners had continued in services for more than six years, certain rights had accrued to Patna High Court CWJC No.11128 of 2007 (10) dt.22-01-2013 5 them and, therefore, sufficient opportunities were required to be given to them. In the said circumstances, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed and the impugned order of their termination dated 19.09.2003 was set aside. However, an observation was given that “the matter may be reconsidered by the authorities, if so advised, in accordance with law”. 7. Now the claim of petitioners is that even after the said order of High Court, the petitioners were not reinstated which forced them to file M.J.C. No.914 of 2006 and during the pendency of the said contempt matter petitioners were reinstated in service on 30.08.2006 but again without initiating departmental proceeding, without issuing show-cause notice and exhausting any procedure/principle required for conduct of proceeding, the petitioners were dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 21.10.2006 only within two months on the same stands which were taken in the earlier order wherein forcibly the authorities obtained written defence statement of the petitioners. 8. This statement has been specifically made by the petitioners in paragraph-12 of their writ petitions and in reply to that the respondents in pargraph-16 of their counter affidavit have stated that the said claim of petitioners is misleading because a proper departmental proceeding was started against the petitioners and they had given their statements before the Patna High Court CWJC No.11128 of 2007 (10) dt.22-01-2013 6 departmental proceeding conducting officer Sri Sunil Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dumraon on 15.09.2006 and only thereafter the impugned order dated 21.10.2006 had been passed, which is a detailed order and also clarifies the said situation. 9. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the observations made by a Bench of this court in its order dated 13.09.2005 passed in CWJC No.955 of 2004 clearly showed that the petitioners were appointed by a duly constituted Board and hence sufficient opportunities were to be given to them and they could not have been removed in such cursory and summary manner and the earlier order of petitioners‟ termination was set aside by that order and an opportunity was given to the authorities to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. 10. In the said circumstances, it was a bounden duty of the authorities to take all steps as provided in law before passing any order of removal of petitioners, but in the instant case it transpires from the statements of respondents themselves and the contents of the impugned order that neither any show-cause notice was given to the petitioners nor any communication was made to them stating the grounds on which they were sought to be removed. So far petitioners‟ statement is concerned, any Patna High Court CWJC No.11128 of 2007 (10) dt.22-01-2013 7 higher officer may take statement from any subordinate and lowly placed police man at any time but that would not definitely suffice the requirement of law. Furthermore, there is no material at all to show that the departmental proceeding was continued and any step in that regard had been taken, as within two months of petitioners‟ reinstatement they had again been removed and in the meantime it was stated that the entire procedure of departmental enquiry etc. had been completed. This appears to be nothing but an official fraud played upon lowly placed employees. 11. No doubt, the impugned order is a detailed order but it is one-sided order without giving proper opportunity of show-cause notice etc. to the petitioners as is apparent from the said order itself. Hence such orders cannot be legally allowed to continue. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents raises another question that against such orders, which are challenged in these writ petitions, appeals are provided in the Rules but without availing the said opportunity the petitioners have moved this court and hence these writ petitions are fit to be dismissed on that ground alone. 13. It may be noted in this connection that the jurisdiction of this court is not barred due to the provision of appeal, rather it is a self inflicted restriction not to generally Patna High Court CWJC No.11128 of 2007 (10) dt.22-01-2013 8 interfere against an order which is appealable before any other authority. In the instant case, the question of equity and natural justice is involved as well as failure of the authorities to follow the due process of law and in such circumstances this court under Article 226 of the Constitution is obliged to interfere, specially when the pleadings are complete and these writ petitions are pending for about six years in this court. 14. Considering the aforesaid matter in its entirety, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.10.2006 (Annexure-7) and 22.08.2002 (Annexure-5) of both the writ petitions are hereby quashed and the petitioners are directed to be reinstated at once without any delay and they shall be considered in continuous service since the date of their removal by the impugned order dated 21.10.2006 and they will be entitled to all consequential benefits. Harish/- (S.N. Hussain, J)