The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A No.70 of 2024 1.The State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand having office at Police Headquarters, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi. 2.Inspector General of Police, Bokaro, P.O.- Bokaro, P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, North Chotanagpur Region, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh 4. Superintendent of Police, Giridih, P.O.- Giridih, P.S.- Giridih (T), District- Giridih. 5. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Khori Mahua, Giridih, P.O. Giridih, P.S.- Giridih (T), District- Giridih. … … Appellants Versus Ramanand Jha, aged about 56 years, son of Late Ram Dekhan Jha, resident of Village Mehsi, P.O.-Mehsi, P.S.-Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur (Bihar). … … Respondent ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellants For the Respondent : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, AC to Sr.SC-I : -------- -------- 1st May 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. The State of Jharkhand has challenged the writ Court's decision In WP(S) No. 4978 of 2022, the writ Court held that the in WP(S) No. 4978 of 2022 to interfere with the order of punishment of dismissal from service. 2. punishment order dated 16th July 2021 was passed in breach of natural justice. 3. The writ Court held as under: “8. Be that as it may, after going through the rival submission of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this court is of the considered view that the writ petition requires interference as the impugned orders at the very face of it is bad in law and illegal and as such, fit to be quashed and set aside for the following facts and reasons: - i. The impugned order has been passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice as before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not provided ample opportunity of hearing to defend his case as he was in jail custody. ii. The petitioner was deprived to cross examine the witnesses in the departmental proceeding and the same was proved merely on the basis of preliminary enquiry in gross violation of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301. iii. The petitioner was in jail because of the lethargic approach of the respondents as evident from the order dated 09.05.2022 that inspite of repeated order of the Court below to the DGP to produce the victim, she was not produced in the court by the prosecution. iv. It is evident from the enquiry report that none of the witnesses have supported case of the respondent-State and even the enquiry officer has given a wrong finding that the petitioner had gone to the home of the victim and took her to the Police Station, rather, as per the complaint, it is apparent that the victim herself had gone to the Police Station. v. The departmental proceeding was conducted ex-parte and not a single proceeding has ever been initiated against the petitioner in his entire service career. vi. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case while the entire departmental proceeding was conducted behind his back when he was languishing in jail custody and the termination order has been passed in a hurricane manner just three days prior to his retirement. From perusal of the alleged charges in the criminal case and that of the departmental proceeding, both appears to be same and similar. The complainant was not examined but on the basis of the FIR, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and letters and report, the petitioner was held guilty. When on the same set of charges a criminal case is pending against the petitioner before competent court of law, it would have been desirable for the disciplinary authority to await for the decision before passing final order in the disciplinary proceeding. Since petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case on the same set of charges, the order of punishment ought to have been recalled. Similar issue fell for consideration in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 as also in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446. vii. Dismissal from service amounts to capital punishment in service jurisprudence which has admittedly been passed ex-parte and the complainant and the authority who has done the preliminary enquiry, both of them has not been examined by the enquiry officer nor the petitioner has been given an opportunity to cross-examine them and even on the similar set of charge in criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted and the order of acquittal of the petitioner has not been challenged by the respondent-State. viii. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence which is legally admissible, the provisions of Evidence Act may not be applicable in the departmental proceeding, but, the principles of natural justice will and mere denial for the sake of denial is not an answer to the specific statement made in the affidavit by the 2 LPA No.70 of 2024 petitioner that too on the basis of the documentary evidence, but, that has totally been overlooked by the respondent-State. ix. Admittedly the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceeding did not consider these aspects of the matter that the complainant was never examined and on the other hand she gave in writing that the allegations are false and fabricated. Merely because there was statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the same could not have been proof for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges in absence of any examination of the complainant or cross examination by the petitioner. 9. As a sequitur of the aforesaid observation, rules, guidelines and legal proposition, the impugned orders dated 27.09.2021 (Annexure-12), passed by DIG confirming the recommendation order dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure-9), passed by Superintendent of Police, Giridih, and also the revision-cum-memorial dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure-15) passed by Inspector General of Police are hereby quashed and set aside. It appears that petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation and as such there cannot be an order for reinstatement. Petitioner is also entitled for consequential benefits/ pensionary benefits with 25% of the backwages within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt / production of the copy of this order.” 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the respondent faced a departmental inquiry on the charge that he sexually exploited a married woman. At the instance of the victim woman, Mahila PS Case No. 21 of 2016 was lodged against him under sections 376(c)/506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 7th September 2016. As per the Department, a report was submitted by the S.D.P.O on 7th September 2016 after conducting a preliminary inquiry. The case set up by the respondent was that the punishment was imposed on him overlooking the statements recorded in course of the preliminary inquiry that the victim lady was a woman of bad character and she had illicit affairs with other persons. The respondent further took a stand that in the criminal case the complainant woman did not turn up and by a judgment dated 9th May 2022 S.T No. 125 of 2018 ended in his honorable acquittal. 5. Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, the learned State counsel submits that the findings recorded in a departmental inquiry and the punishment awarded to the delinquent employee cannot be interfered merely on the ground that he was acquitted in a criminal case. The learned State counsel submits that the charges against the respondent were grave and touching upon moral 3 LPA No.70 of 2024 turpitude and, moreover, the order of dismissal from service is based on materials produced by the Department in the domestic inquiry. 6. The powers of Judicial review exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are limited to examining the arbitrariness, perversity and proportionality in the order of punishment. Howsoever limited the powers of judicial review maybe, the High Court shall interfere with a finding recorded in the domestic inquiry if that finding is perverse. Similarly, arbitrariness and proportionality in the order of punishment that shocks the conscience of the Court are well-known grounds for interference by the High Court. 7. custody since 17th January 2018 and he could come out from the jail only This is a matter of record that the respondent was in judicial after a decision was rendered on 9th May 2022 in S.T No. 125 of 2018. In the departmental proceeding, the inquiry report was submitted on 13th October 2018 and the only opportunity to defend himself that the respondent could avail was to file his written submission of defence. Pertinently, the respondent had no opportunity to examine any of the witnesses who gave evidence in the domestic inquiry. Quite obviously, the respondent had no opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal by examining witnesses who had made favorable statements in course of the preliminary inquiry. The order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police, Giridih was therefore not sustainable in law and the revisional authority failed to consider the effect of acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case; by that time the respondent was acquitted in S.T No. 125 of 2018. 8. In "Ram Lal v State of Rajasthan" (2024) 1 SCC 175 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of punishment made in a departmental inquiry may not be interfered on acquittal of the delinquent employee but the acquittal of the employee by a criminal Court shall certainly be a relevant consideration while examining the defence put forth by the government employee. In “Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan” (2024) 1 SCC 175 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 4 LPA No.70 of 2024 "30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the Appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive........” identical and 9. Besides the denial of an opportunity to the respondent to defend himself in the departmental inquiry, the matter before the criminal Court and in the departmental inquiry was the same. Furthermore, the complainant lady did not come in the witness box to tender evidence and she did not even give a statement before the inquiring officer. 10. interfere in this matter and, accordingly, L.P.A No.70 of 2024 is dismissed. Having regard to the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Sudir/Vedanti NAFR 5 LPA No.70 of 2024