An Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent --- 1. The State of v. 1. Digvijay Narayan Singh
Case Details
L P. A. No. 191 of 2014 An Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent --- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi … … Appellants Versus 1. Digvijay Narayan Singh … … Respondent 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Range, Bokaro 3. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad … … Performa Respondents --- For the Appellants For the Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ashok Kumar, AAG IV : None --- Present: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- By Court: Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned AAG IV for the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.06.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6214 of 2005 wherein the order of removal from service of the writ petitioner has been converted into a punishment of forfeiture of two increments with cumulative effect. 3.
Decision
The factual aspects of the case reveal that the writ petitioner was in the police department and when he was deputed as a body-guard of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, he proceeded on two days leave without there being any grant of leave by the appropriate authority and he also did not deposit the arms and ammunition before he proceeded for leave. A show-cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner to which a reply was also submitted, however, the same was not found to be satisfactory as a consequence of which a departmental inquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was served with a charge memo on 03.12.2002 -2- wherein three charges have been framed against him which are enumerated hereinbelow: (i) Absence from the duty without informing the department; (ii) he committed in performing the duty when without depositing the pistol he left the duty with the pistol and the ammunition; indiscipline and showed negligence (iii) he proceeded on leave with his service revolver and cartridge. 4. In the departmental proceeding, the charges against the writ petitioner were found to be proved pursuant to which a second show- cause notice was issued and after considering the reply, an order was passed on 04.06.2003 by the disciplinary authority dismissing the writ petitioner from service. Being aggrieved with the order of dismissal, the writ petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 6214 of 2005 which was disposed of on 28.06.2013 by modifying the quantum of punishment and instead of dismissal from service, a direction was given for forfeiture of two increments with cumulative effect. There would be no entitlement of the petitioner for any back wages and the cost of pistol and cartridge were to be recovered from the petitioner in terms of Rule 1108 of Jharkhand Police Manual. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned AAG IV while assailing the impugned order dated 28.06.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6214 of 2005 has submitted that the departmental proceeding has been conducted as per procedure and the charges levelled against the writ petitioner stands proved. It has further been submitted that though the learned Single Judge has modified the quantum of punishment, but he was precluded to do so as it would be only the concerned authority who can consider and/or modify the order of punishment. Learned AAG IV in support of his contention has referred to the case of “Union of India & Others Vs. Subrata Nath” reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned AAG IV and have also perused the entire records. 7. As has been noted above, the charge which was levelled against the writ petitioner was of absence from duty without informing the department, indiscipline and negligence in performing his duty as without depositing his pistol, he had left his duty with a pistol and -3- ammunition and proceeded on leave with his service revolver and cartridge. So far as charge nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the same seems to be interlinked and intertwined. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.06.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6214 of 2005 clearly reveals that though the procedural aspects with respect to the initiation of departmental proceeding and its conclusion has been upheld, but considering the factors which have been noted in the impugned order itself, the quantum of punishment of the writ petitioner has been modified and reduced to punishment of forfeiture of two increments with cumulative effect. Though, learned AAG IV has primarily relied on the fact that the departmental proceeding was conducted in accordance with law, but as stated above, the impugned order dated 28.06.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6214 of 2005 has apparently affirmed the same and on consideration of Rule 826 and 1108 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, the order of dismissal from service was modified. 8. In “Union of India & Others Vs. Subrata Nath” (supra) which learned AAG IV has relied upon the findings recorded in “B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Others” reported in (2017) 4 SCC 507 has been reiterated. The relevant portion is quoted hereinunder: “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 9. Though an embargo has been put in the aforesaid judgment with respect to the exercise of powers of judicial review by the High Court/Tribubal and it cannot substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty, but the same comes with a rider to the effect that if the order of punishment shocks the conscience of the High -4- Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, or it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. 10. The judgment which has been referred to by the learned AAG IV in fact appropriately corelates with the findings given in the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6214 of 2005 as the order of punishment of dismissal from service was replaced with a punishment of forfeiture of two increments with cumulative effect. The reasons which been given and which seems to be justifiable is that it was more than 27 years since the writ petitioner was appointed as a constable and more than 10 years have passed since the order has been passed for removal from service against the writ petitioner. In fact, the impugned order passed is of 04.06.2003 and more than a decade has passed since the date of the said order which makes all the more supportive of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. Though, the learned AAG IV has repeatedly stressed upon the fact that the matter be remanded back to the concerned authority for deciding the quantum of punishment as held in the case of “Union of India & Others Vs. Subrata Nath” (supra), but the relief can be moulded and one of the grounds which is palpable is to shorten the litigation and which has been appropriately considered by the learned Single Judge. 11. We therefore, on consideration of the aforesaid facts do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 28.06.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6214 of 2005 and consequently this appeal stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 4th day of January, 2024 R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3