The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2015 of 2018 Manoranjan Kumar ….. Versus ..… Petitioner 1.Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, District-Ranchi. 2.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, District- Ranchi. 3.Senior Superintendent of Police, Government of Jharkhand, at IRB-2, Chaibasa Camp, Musabani, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District-East Singhbhum. 4.Superintendent of Police, Government of Jharkhand, at Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District-East Singhbhum. ..... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Navin Kr. Singh, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG-V Mr. Shubham Gautam, A.C. to AAG-V --------- 07/Dated: 1st March, 2024 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 204/GO. Dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure-7) issued by respondent No.3, whereby punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner by putting him in the initial pay scale for three years which is equal to three black marks with a warning. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order passed by the appellate authority dated 27.01.2016 (Annexure-9), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was sustained. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure-11) inasmuch as, the same has been passed without considering the specific grounds of the petitioner that a person on whose report, departmental proceeding was initiated, he himself acted as a disciplinary authority and pass the punishment order. The petitioner has further prayed that upon quashing of the punishment orders the respondents may be directed to pay all consequential benefits accrued thereon. 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the instant application lies in a narrow compass. The incident for which departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner occurred on 23.09.2012 for which an enquiry has been done and the report has been submitted on 09.11.2012 in which all the persons of the camp patrolling party including the complainant were held guilty. Again an enquiry was made for the same occurance of 23.09.2012 and the I.O. submitted his report on 30.04.2013 in which the petitioner with other persons were held guilty. On 13.07.2013, a departmental proceeding has been initiated which itself shows the nature, conduct and behaviour of the complainant and the way he performed his duties. On the basis of the report of the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.04.2013, the petitioner was suspended on 08.07.2014 and a charge memo was also framed by the same
Legal Reasoning
very authority on 21.07.2014 and first show-cause reply was asked from the petitioner. The petitioner has given his detailed first show cause reply on 05.09.2014 and the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report on 29.09.2014 by giving an erroneous finding that there was an enmity between Ram Bilash (Complainant) and the other person and also the very cause of action was for surrendering their arms and ammunition to Magazine Guard before time and not for drinking of water held the petitioner guilty by using a person as a departmental witness who was also held guilty as the same is evident from the report dated 09.11.2012 and 30.04.2013. Pursuant to the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority stating inter alia that a person on whose report the departmental proceeding has been initiated has himself pass the punishment order becoming a disciplinary authority. However, the appellate authority did not consider the ground and rejected the appeal in a summary manner. Petitioner again filed an appeal on 24.06.2016 before the Director General of Police. However, the second appeal was also rejected vide order dated 25.09.2017. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Navin Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a unique case where the authority on whose report the departmental proceeding has been initiated; by becoming a disciplinary authority has passed the punishment order against him. He further submits that Section 42 of the Police Act has not been followed in the instant case to the extent that as per Section 42, any action by the respondent is barred after three months and any proceeding initiated after the period of three months shall be deemed to be non-est in the eye of law. In the instant case, the incident is of 23.09.2012 in which the complainant along with all patrolling parties were held guilty. Thereafter, again for the same incidence of 23.09.2012 another enquiry was conducted on 30.04.2013 where all the persons of the patrolling party including the complainant were held guilty. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended on 08.07.2014 and charge was framed. It has been submitted that eight months have passed from the date of the incidence; as such the same is barred by Section 42 of Police Manual. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report relying on the earlier report gave the finding. Interestingly, in the instant case the first enquiry officer was Prithvi Nath Ram who submitted its report (Annexure-2) and he himself issued charge-sheet (Annexure-4) and passed the order of punishment (Annexure- 7). In order to confuse the petitioner the second enquiry report was submitted by one Pramod Kumar Sahu, however, again even on the submission of second inquiry report, the disciplinary authority was the same person. As such, the entire proceeding is non-est in the eye of the law because a person who is the enquiry officer and submitted its report cannot be judge of his own case and pass the order of punishment. He lastly submits that no second show cause notice has been given though it was a major punishment. 5. Learned counsel reiterated that from perusal of charge sheet, enquiry report and order of punishment it is clear that only Prithvi Nath Ram has issued all those letters, as such the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that first of all the entire allegation made by the petitioner in the writ petition are totally false fabricated and not sustainable in the eye of law, but as matter of fact the allegation against petitioner is very serious in nature, because the petitioner was on night patrolling duty dated 24.9.2012 with Hawildar Harinath Singh, Police 383, Yogesh Kumar Ojha and Police 389, Satyendra Kumar and the time of duty was at night 22:00 to morning 04:00, but the petitioner with Patrolling party at 02:40 O’clock went to Magazine Guard and kept the Riffle, Cartridges and Magazine on the verandah and in course of returning there was quarrel between them and the petitioner assaulted police 328 Ram Vilash, for this in human behaviour of the petitioner the image of the police force has tarnished and the matter of auscultation by the petitioner to the said police was also published in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 24.5.2013 and for this reason not only the image of the concerned police force but the image of entire Police Department has been tarnished. 7. Learned counsel further submits that there was a serious allegation against this petitioner and as such in “Force” indiscipline cannot be tolerated at all. However, learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the admitted fact that one person who was the enquiry officer and submitted the report was himself became the disciplinary authority and issued the charge sheet and order of punishment. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that Section 42 of Bihar Police Manual has been repealed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that there was an incidence on 23.09.2012 for which an enquiry was conducted and the first enquiry report was submitted on 09.11.2012. The first enquiry officer who submitted the report was one Prithvi Nath Ram. Again for the same incidence dated 23.09.2012 another enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and the petitioner along with all persons of the patrolling party including the complainant were held guilty. The second enquiry report was submitted on 30.04.2013. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued by the person who himself was the enquiry officer in the first enquiry of which the report was submitted on 09.11.2012. After the charge-sheet, the petitioner replied and pursuant to that enquiry was conducted and order of punishment was passed by the same person namely Pritam Nath Ram. Thus it is evident that the person who has passed the impugned order was himself the first enquiry officer and he himself issued the charge-sheet and finally imposed major punishment upon the petitioner which is against the settled principal of service jurisprudence. As such, on this score
Decision
alone, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside. 10. It further transpires from the order of punishment that Rule 828 of Jharkhand Police Manual is not followed, inasmuch as, it is only the Superintendent of Police who can pass the order of major punishment excluding dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement and admittedly, the said Prithvi Nath Ram assume the charge of disciplinary authority and pass the order of punishment who was admittedly senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, but not Superintendent of Police. On this score also the instant writ application needs to be allowed. 11. It further transpires that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was admittedly a major punishment as per the Jharkhand Police Manual, but no second show-cause notice was given and the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order only on the basis of enquiry report. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of punishment as contained in Memo No. 204/GO. dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure-7), the appellate order dated 27.01.2016 (Annexure-9) and also the order dated 25.09.2017 (Annexure-11), are, hereby, quashed and set aside. Nevertheless, the respondents are at liberty to initiate the proceedings again from the stage of issuing a fresh charge sheet and proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law, if so advised. However, if the respondent chooses to proceed for the proceeding against this petitioner, the entire proceeding shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits on the expiry of four months. It goes without saying that any proceeding will be initiated, the petitioner shall fully cooperate in conclusion of the proceedings 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands allowed. Amardeep/ (Deepak Roshan, J.)