The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 107 of 2022 ------ 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Doranda, Ranchi. 3. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh. Manish Kumar Mishra Versus ------ … Appellant(s) … Respondent(s) CORAM :
Legal Reasoning
SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. For the Appellant(s) For the Respondent 08/ Dated: 14.07.2023 ----- : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG. : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate. ----- Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per, Ananda Sen, J.)
Decision
O R D E R 1. By filing this intra- Court appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters-Patent, the appellant-State has assailed the final order dated 5.8.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) NO. 3261 of 2014, whereby and learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition quashing the order of dismissal of the writ petitioner as well as the appellate order. 2. Counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the police constables had given evidence that the writ petitioner used to visit the house of the villagers for consuming liquor during duty hours, which is a misconduct. The ground resorted to, while allowing the writ petition, that the writ petitioner was not subjected to medical test to substantiate the allegation of consumption of liquor, does not hold good in view of the evidence of the witnesses. Further, the appellant-State submitted that the second charge is that the petitioner had called the superior official and misbehaved, but the learned Single Judge also did not appreciate the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer on the aforesaid issue. As per the State, the fact that the petitioner had called the superior official over mobile has been admitted by the petitioner, which would suggest that the petitioner had exceeded his jurisdiction and was guilty of in-subordination. He further submitted that all these facts clearly suggest that the petitioner was guilty of charges levelled against him. Further, it has been argued that in a Disciplinary Proceeding, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court should not sit as an appellate Court and cannot weigh the evidence. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the 2. State prays that this Letters Patent Appeal should be allowed and the punishment order be restored. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner cannot be said to be proved, though there is admission that the petitioner had called his superior official but mere giving a call to superior official cannot be construed as a misconduct. He further submitted that so far as allegation of misbehaving over the phone is concerned, the said allegation is without evidence, as the person who has been misbehaved with, has not been examined. Unless, the person who has been misbehaved with is examined, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has misbehaved with the superior official. So far as allegation with regard to consumption of liquor during the official duty is concerned, it has been submitted that there is no evidence to the said fact as there is no medical examination of the writ petitioner. The allegation is vague without specifying any date, time etc. 4. After hearing the parties, we find that the writ petitioner who is a constable under the Jharkhand Armed Force was subjected to a departmental proceeding. The charges against the writ petitioner, as per the departmental chargesheet are as follows; “1. Along with a company force of this force, he is deputed for law and order duty at Vashishtha Nagar, Jari Police Station (which is a very sensitive and extremist affected area) under Chatra District. While on deputation, he often went outside the police station premises to drink alcohol without asking anyone and thereafter abused the officers, deputed at the police station. From time to time, he unnecessarily calls the Superintendent of Police, Chatra and harassed him on the phone, due to which he was sent back to the the the orders given by headquarters on Superintendent of Police, Chatra through telephone. 2. Vashishtha Nagar, Jori Police Station, is a highly extremist affected area, violent incidents are being carried out by extremist organizations in the border areas of this district. He has been deputed here on duty for the cooperation and security of the public, where he had to perform his duty by being especially cautious, for which he has been directed time and again. But he used to go to the houses of the villagers and consume liquor, make hue and cry in the picket/police station by unnecessarily abusing and created problems for the security of the Police Station.” 5. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. Two witnesses were examined during the enquiry, who are the police officials. upon conclusion of the enquiry, report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority, wherein, it was mentioned that he petitioner used to go the village and consume liquor and in intoxicated 3. condition, he used to abuse the police officials. The Enquiry Officer also found that without any reason, he used to make telephonic call to the Superintendent of Police, Chatra which caused inconvenience to the Superintendent of Police. The Enquiry Officer did not found any evidence that the petitioner had verbally abused the higher officials, but the petitioner-delinquent admitted that he called the Superintendent of Police as there was some problem with the electricity supply in the campus of Police Station. The Enquiry Officer also found the petitioner guilty for disturbing the Superintendent of Police. The Disciplinary Authority, agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, punished the petitioner by terminating him from service and the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. 6. The learned Single Judge has held that there is no medical report to suggest that the petitioner was in drunken condition during his duty hours and not even for a single time, the petitioner was sent for medical examination. The learned Single Judge also arrived at a conclusion that the charge was general in nature that the petitioner frequently went to the village and consumed liquor. The learned Single Judge further held that on mere oral evidence by some person that the petitioner always remained under the influence of liquor during his duty hours, is not enough. There should have been a medical report to that effect. The learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that only on the basis of oral evidence of two police constables, it cannot be held that the petitioner always remained under the influence of liquor during his duty hours. 7. Admittedly, the charge against the petitioner with regard to consumption of liquor during duty hour has not been proved by the respondent authorities by any medical test, but by examining only two police constables. The Department has tried to prove that the petitioner used to remain under the influence of liquor regularly during the duty hours, but admittedly, at no point of time, the petitioner was even sent for medical test. Whether a person is under the influence of liquor or not, can best be substantiated if he is sent for medical test. Since there was no medical test conduced upon the petitioner, it was not proper to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner always remained under the influence of liquor during his official work. Further, the charge against the petitioner is also vague and general in nature. On vague and general allegation, without specifying any date and time of incident, it is not proper to initiate a departmental proceeding against a person. 8. Further the charge of frequently calling the Superintendent of Police and disturbing him also cannot be a ground for dismissal of the petitioner. From the impugned order of punishment, we find that for the act of giving call to the Superintendent of Police, he was recalled and placed at the Headquarters. This act 4. cannot be said to be a misconduct and the same is well explained and it was also admitted by the Enquiry Officer that as there was some electricity problem in the Police Station, he gave a call to the Superintendent of Police. The Enquiry Report also suggests that the Enquiry Officer did not find that the petitioner misbehaved with any of the officials. 9. Thus, considering all these facts, the learned Single Judge has correctly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appellate order as well as order of dismissal of the petitioner. We find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 10. 11. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copy as per rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) Anu/-CP2. (Ananda Sen, J.)