Kunal Kishore Singh son of Late Rajendra Singh, resident of village Harpur Purab Tola v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 40 of 2023 ---- Kunal Kishore Singh son of Late Rajendra Singh, resident of village Harpur Purab Tola, Post Harpur Kara, Police Station Baniapur, District Chapra, Bihar. … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar (STF), Ranchi officiating from Police Headquarters, Ranchi, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi; 3. The Superintendent of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar (STF), Ranchi officiating from Police Headquarters, Ranchi, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. … Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate For the Appellant: For the Respondents: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV ---- 05/ 31.10.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following (Per Ananda Sen, J.):-
Decision
O R D E R 1. This Intra Court Appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.3830 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the impugned order is bad as the same has not take into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner-appellant was suffering from mental illness and in his absence, Departmental Proceeding was conducted. As per the writ petitioner- appellant, for the sake of argument even, if the notice of the Departmental Proceeding would have been served, no useful purpose would have been served as the writ petitioner-appellant was suffering from mental ailment and by any means he could not have appeared to participate in the Departmental -: 2 :- Proceeding. She submits that the exparte Departmental Enquiry needs to be set aside, as the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner needs to be given opportunity to place his case. She contends that the genuineness of the medical prescriptions and documents showing that the writ petitioner-appellant was suffering from mental ailment and was under treatment under Neuro-Psychiatrist at Ranchi, was in fact, not disbelieved by the respondents and that being so, the order of dismissal is bad. So far as the delay in filing the Departmental Appeal is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that when in fact the writ petitioner- appellant was suffering from mental ailment, it was impossible for him to file any appeal and pursue the same. Once the writ petitioner-appellant was cured, he chose to file the appeal, which was dismissed. On these grounds, counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge be set aside as these aspects were not considered. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that even if the writ petitioner-appellant was suffering from mental illness, he failed to file a Departmental Appeal within the reasonable period. He submits that the documents, which the writ petitioner-appellant has produced, suggests that the same are fabricated. It is his contention that several letters were sent to the writ petitioner-appellant, directing him to join his duty, but he failed. The punishment order was served upon one Prem Kumar Singh, who happens to be the brother of the writ petitioner-appellant, but neither the writ petitioner- appellant nor said Prem Kumar Singh submitted any document before the Officer about his illness. Considering the charges against the writ petitioner- appellant, rightly he has been ordered to be removed from service. Since there is no illegality in the order passed by the authority or the learned Single Judge, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State and have also gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Admittedly, the writ petitioner-appellant was a Constable in Jharkhand Jaguar (STF). The fact that he fell ill is admitted by the respondents-State as medical leave was granted from 13.08.2010 to 19.08.2010, but the writ petitioner-appellant was directed to mark his attendance everyday at the headquarters. Allegation against the writ -: 3 :- petitioner-appellant is that he left the headquarters without any information and headquarters without any information and thereafter he did not join. On 08.09.2010, a letter was sent to the writ petitioner-appellant, asking him to join. As he did not join, he was put under suspension and a chargesheet was issued on 03.10.2010 and sent to the writ petitioner-appellant at his home address. Charge was framed and Departmental Proceeding was conducted exparte. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 10.12.2011, holding that the charges are proved. Enquiry Report was sent to the home address of the writ petitioner-appellant, but the same was not responded to. Ultimately, the writ petitioner-appellant was dismissed on 31.03.2012. The appeal which was filed after delay was also dismissed. 6. The appellant’s claim is that he was under continuous treatment for mental illness from 16.08.2010 till 09.02.2018. When he knew about the order of removal from service, he filed an appeal on 23.03.2018. We find that definitely, there was delay in filing the Departmental Appeal challenging the order of removal, but the fact that the writ petitioner-appellant was unwell and was suffering from mental ailment was not specifically denied by the respondents. From the impugned order, we find that the writ petitioner- appellant submitted some documents showing that he was undergoing treatment in hospital, but these documents could not be placed before the Enquiry Officer as the proceeding was exparte. If a person is suffering from mental ailment, it is but natural that he cannot participate in the Departmental Proceeding and even if he participates, due to his mental illness, the entire proceeding will vitiate. 7. Learned Single Judge has held that the letters and information about the Departmental Proceeding was sent to the home address of the writ petitioner-appellant and the postal challan shows that one Prem Kumar Singh, who is said to be the brother of the writ petitioner-appellant, had received the copy of the punishment order also. Learned Single Judge held that inspite of receipt of the said document by Prem Kumar Singh, writ petitioner-appellant did not appear. After going through the record, we find that there is nothing to suggest as to what was the relationship between Prem Kumar Singh and the writ petitioner-appellant. Learned Single Judge has held that he is “said to be the brother of the petitioner”. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that he is brother of the writ petitioner-appellant, then also service of notice to -: 4 :- the brother cannot be accepted to be valid service of notice to the writ petitioner-appellant. Further, when the petitioner is mentally unwell, serving notice to the brother will have no consequence. Factually, the writ petitioner- appellant, if he is suffering from mental illness, should have been supported by his next kin and if his brother is the next kin and even after receipt of notice, his brother has not taken steps, for that reason, writ petitioner-appellant cannot be penalized. In that case an impression can be drawn that his brother, i.e., Prem Kumar Singh has not acted as the next kin of the writ petitioner-appellant who was suffering from mental illness for safeguarding his interest. 8. Learned Single Judge further held that the writ petitioner- appellant’s absentism was not supported by any evidence. We are of the opinion that since the proceeding was exparte, there was no occasion to produce any document. Documents were produced before the Appellate Authority, though there was a delay in filing the appeal. Appellate Authority, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, at least should have verified the genuineness of the said documents and genuineness of the fact about the illness of the writ petitioner-appellant and only thereafter should have proceeded to decide the appeal. If actually the appellant was suffering from mental illness, then removing him after exparte proceeding is a great injustice. 9. Considering the aforesaid flaws and also considering that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of removal without giving proper opportunity to the writ petitioner-appellant, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, Appellate Order passed by the Appellate Authority and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority need to be set aside. Accordingly, while setting aside the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.3830 of 2018, we also hereby set aside the order contained in Memo No.1884 dated 31.03.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the proceeding afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner-appellant. The Disciplinary Authority shall also verify the documents, which the writ petitioner will produce and thereafter pass an appropriate order. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant submits that the writ petitioner-appellant is now in a fit state of mind and is in a position to contest the Departmental Proceeding. -: 5 :- 11. Considering the aforesaid position, we direct the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the Departmental Proceeding within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petitioner-appellant is directed to cooperate in the proceeding without unnecessarily taking adjournments. It is made clear that if the writ petitioner-appellant fails to cooperate, respondents shall be free to proceed exparte. This Letters Patent Appeal, accordingly, stands allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 12. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) Kumar/Cp-02 (Ananda Sen, J.)