Rajesh Kumar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 721 of 2021 Rajesh Kumar ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Jaguar (STF), Jharkhand, Ranchi, Dhurwa, Ranchi 4. The Superintendent of Police (Administration), Jharkhand Jaguar (STF), Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand --- … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner For the State --- : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P. II Mr. Abhilash Kumar, AC to G.P. II --- Order No. 07 Dated 23rd March, 2023 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.03.2015 issued vide Memo No. 1462/Ra-Ka by the respondent No. 4 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2015 as contained in Memo No. 4563/Ra-Ka passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Jaguar (STF), whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. It has been submitted by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been proceeded in a departmental proceeding on account of a complaint made by the father of his first wife that he has contracted a second marriage with one Sandhya Kumari. It has been submitted that a First Information Report was also instituted by the father of his first wife Rajni Kumari. Learned counsel submits that so far as Sandhya Kumar is concerned, she had left the petitioner way back and in such circumstances, therefore it cannot be said that the act of the petitioner was contrary to the rules regarding bigamy. Learned counsel submits in the alternative that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is not in commensuration with the charges levelled against him and the same should be reconsidered in terms of Rule 824 of the Jharkhand Police Manual which 2. prescribes the major punishments which includes other punishments apart from dismissal and removal. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned G.P. II submits that the act of the petitioner was a grave misconduct and in fact the petitioner has acknowledged his solemnizing second marriage with Sandhya Kumari. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is a member of a disciplined force who was working as a constable and such grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner would attract a punishment of dismissal and therefore the impugned orders do not require any interference. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as a constable on 22.09.2005 in the District Police, Lohardaga and he was subsequently transferred to Jharkhand Jaguar, Ranchi in the year 2008. The petitioner had performed court marriage with one Rajani Kumari on 05.02.2013 in presence of the Marriage Officer, Ranchi. It is the case of the petitioner that his family members had forced him to solemnize marriage with one Sandhya Kumari on 02.06.2013. The second marriage of the petitioner with Sandhya Kumari had led to a cascading effect as the father of his first wife Rajani Kumar had instituted a First Information Report and had also made a complaint which led to initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and the charges having been proved, an order of dismissal was passed by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 27.03.2015 as contained in Memo No. 1462/Ra-Ka. The petitioner had preferred an appeal under the provisions of Jharkhand Police Manual before the appellate authority which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2015 as contained in Memo No. 4563/Ra-Ka passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Jaguar (STF). A perusal of the order of dismissal and the appellate order dated 10.08.2015 leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner had solemnized a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage with Rajani Kumari and there is nothing on record to indicate any sort of permission was taken by the petitioner while solemnizing the second marriage. The charges having been proved and which requires no interference, the issue which has to be considered is whether the punishment of dismissal from service is in commensuration with the charges levelled against the 3. petitioner. In such context, learned G.P. II has referred to the cases of Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 439 and Jamuna Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 3240. In the case of Khursheed Ahmad Khan (Supra), the factual aspects reveal about the said petitioner having solemnized a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage and a penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon him. The gravity of charges was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same reads as under:- “11. As already mentioned above, there is adequate material on record in support of the charge against the appellant that he performed the second marriage during the currency of the first marriage. Admittedly, there is no intimation in any form on record that the appellant had divorced his first wife. In service record she continued to be mentioned as the wife of the appellant. Moreover, she has given a statement in enquiry proceedings that she continued to be the wife of the appellant. The appellant also admitted in inquiry conducted on directions of the Human Rights Commission that his first marriage had continued. In these circumstances, the finding of violation of the Conduct Rules cannot be held to be perverse or unreasonable so as to call for interference by this Court. In these circumstances, the High Court was justified in holding that the penalty of removal cannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge on established judicial parameters.” Similarly in the case of Jamuna Ram (Supra), the prayer of the said petitioner with respect to the fact that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him were negated and the appeal was dismissed and which was affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was held therein that the appellant who was working in the police force as a constable and there being a gross violation of the Rule 23 of Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1976 as well as the provisions of the Police Manual, the punishment inflicted was neither levelled as unreasonably excessive or shockingly disproportionate. Similar is the present case where during the life time of his first wife, the petitioner had solemnized a second marriage which has been duly proved in the 4. departmental proceeding and a punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted upon him which is in commensuration with the charges levelled against the petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner is a member of a disciplined force who was employed as a constable. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere in the impugned orders dated 27.03.2015 passed by the respondent No. 4 and the appellate order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Jaguar (STF) and consequently this writ application is dismissed. MK (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)