Krishna Mohan Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Late Indrasan Singh, resident of v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Director General & Inspector General of Police
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 275 of 2024 ---------- Krishna Mohan Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Late Indrasan Singh, resident of village Bhikhampur, Deoria, Post Bikhampura, Police Station Rampur, District Deoria (Uttar Pradesh). … … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Director General & Inspector General of Police having office at Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range having office at Doranda, Post Doranda, Police Station Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police having office at Circular Road, Post Lalpur, Police Station Lalpur, District Ranchi. … … Respondents/Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant For the Respondents ------- : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Mrs. Satakshi, Advocate : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V ---------------------------- 07/Dated: 07th August, 2024 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.: Prayer: 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1889 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order of punishment of dismissal from service. Page 1 L.P.A. No. 275 of 2024 Facts: 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings in the writ petition reads as under. The petitioner was appointed in Ranchi District Force as Constable in the year 2008. He was proceeded departmentally by framing memo of charge on 20.12.2018. The charge against the petitioner is that on 8.12.2018 in the evening at 6.00 pm, he along with others went to medical store, namely, ‘Life Plus Medical Store’ and demanded a cough syrup. Two more police personnel in police uniform and one person in civil dress came and disclosed to the staff of the said medical store that they are from Narcotics Department. They told that the shop was selling duplicate medicines and therefore, the staff should call the owner of the shop. All the persons were identified to be the police personnel in the footage of camera installed in the shop. In this way, Rs. 30,000/- was cheated, which led to lodging of FIR, being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 625 of 2018 dated 8.12.2018 for the offence under sections 452, 420, 386 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge further shows that in this way, the image of Ranchi Police was tarnished by the petitioner. Thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence to the enquiry officer-cum-Assistant Superintendent of Police. The petitioner denied the charges so alleged. The defence taken is that the petitioners went to the said medical store to purchase medicine, but some altercations took place between the staff of the medical store and the petitioner and therefore, a concocted and manufactured story was cooked up, which led to lodging of the FIR and the departmental proceeding. Altogether four witnesses were examined during the departmental proceeding, namely, Ajit Kumar Vimal Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kotwali, Jay Prakash Paswan, Assistant Sub- Inspector, Police Kendra, Ranchi, Vinay Yadav, Gopneeya Pravachak and Sanjay Kumar, Inspector-cum-Officer in Charge, Sukhdeonagar Police Station. The informant Avinash Kumar Singh was not examined in the departmental proceeding, but he tendered his written statement to the enquiry officer. The petitioners have pleaded that all these witnesses Page 2 L.P.A. No. 275 of 2024 were examined behind the back of the petitioners. Even the date on which they were examined is also not known to the petitioner. Even the written statement of the complainant Avinash Kumar Singh who said to be tendered his written statements, the copy of the same was not supplied to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses including Avinash Kumar Singh. After conclusion of the enquiry, the report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 31.5.2019 holding the petitioners guilty of the charges. The petitioner was issued notice before the penalty order. Such notice was issued by memo no. 5773 dated 03.07.2019. In turn, the petitioner submitted reply on 10.07.2019. Ultimately, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner on 30.8.2019 with the direction that the petitioner would not be entitled to get anything than what was paid to them during the period of suspension. The petitioner preferred his appeal which came to be rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi on 27.4.2020. The memorial/revision was preferred by the petitioner, but the same also resulted with same fate as it was rejected on 28.12.2020. 3.
Decision
It is evident from the facts as referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner while working as Constable has been proceeded departmentally on the basis of institution of one FIR being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 625 of 2018 dated 08.12.2018 registered under sections 452, 420, 386 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant-writ petitioner was directed to participate in the enquiry before the enquiry officer. The appellant-writ petitioner denied the allegation. Thereafter, the enquiry officer has found the charges proved and based upon the same, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which has been affirmed by the appellate as also by revisional authority vide orders dated 27.04.2020 and 07.07.2020 respectively. The appellant-writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said orders passed by the administrative authorities at different stages, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1889 of 2021. The learned writ court has refused to interfere with the impugned orders on the Page 3 L.P.A. No. 275 of 2024 observation given to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the acquittal in criminal case cannot be said to be clean acquittal. The appellant-writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of learned writ court, has preferred the instant appeal. Argument on behalf of the Appellant-Writ Petitioner: 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the administrative authorities: (i) The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the acquittal in the criminal case which has been considered to be not a clean acquittal, is not based upon the material placed before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction since in the criminal case, the complainant has not identified the appellant-writ petitioner and as such, the very foundation of the prosecution story has collapsed, in consequence thereof, the appellant-writ petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case. (ii) The memorandum of charge is based upon the First Information Report but the moment the appellant-writ petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal liability, the implied meaning of the same will be that the same is not in existence in the eyes of law which said to involve the appellant-writ petitioner in any criminal liability. (iii) The ground has been taken that the moment the FIR is no more in existence, the very foundation of the charge itself has gone and as such, the entire departmental proceeding including the order of punishment will also be vitiated in the eyes of law. (iv) The ground has been taken that the complainant, namely, Avinash Kumar Singh has not been brought for his examination before the enquiry officer and as such, the cardinal principles of natural justice has been denied by not allowing the appellant-writ petitioner to examine the complainant. Page 4 L.P.A. No. 275 of 2024 (v) Further, the complainant, namely, Avinash Kumar Singh was the informant in the FIR being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 625 of 2018 who was examined but has not identified the appellant-writ petitioner and even no efforts has been taken by the enquiry officer to secure his appearance before the enquiry since is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as such, the entire departmental proceeding will be said to be vitiated in the eyes of law. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned Single Judge since has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter, hence, the order impugned needs to be interfered with. Argument on behalf of the Respondents: 6. Per contra, Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, learned SC-V appearing for the respondents has taken the following grounds in defending the order impugned: (i) It has been submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fundamental principle that the acquittal in the criminal case will not govern the fate of the departmental proceeding since both the criminal as well as departmental proceeding is to run parallel having no bearing to each other. (ii) The acquittal in the criminal case as has been taken as a ground for dismissal of the appellant-writ petitioner has rightly been considered to be a ground by the learned Single Judge reason being that the acquittal cannot be said to be on merit rather the witnesses have been declared to be hostile, as such, the outcome of the criminal case will have no bearing in the departmental proceeding. (iii) The departmental proceeding is to run independently and the charge since has been framed with respect to the conduct of the appellant-writ petitioner who has been found to be not fit to retain the post since the image of the police has been put at stake. Page 5 L.P.A. No. 275 of 2024 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order therefore, suffers from no infirmity, as such, needs no interference and the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. Analysis: 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also the factual aspect/pleadings made in the memo of appeal/writ petition. 9. The undisputed fact in this case is that the appellant-writ petitioner was proceeded departmentally based upon the institution of FIR being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 625 of 2018 which has been instituted by one Avinash Kumar Singh, the informant. The appellant-writ petitioner was taken into custody, however, was subsequently released on bail. The appellant-writ petitioner was also proceeded departmentally after conducting preliminary enquiry wherein the fact has come about the complicity of the appellant-writ petitioner in going to the shop of the informant/complainant, namely, Avinash Kumar Singh and impersonated himself to be a Narcotics Officer and has demanded money for the purpose of allowing the complainant to run the medicine shop. The appellant-writ petitioner had been asked to participate in the enquiry proceeding. However, prior to issuance of the memorandum of charge, he has admitted the charge partially, i.e., of going to the medicine shop but he has denied the commission of any offence of impersonating himself as a Narcotics Officer for the purpose of demanding money from the shopkeeper, i.e., the complainant/informant. The charge was framed and in consequence thereof, the appellant-writ petitioner has participated in the enquiry wherein the appellant-writ petitioner has denied the allegation. The enquiry officer has recorded the statement of the police witnesses but has not issued any communication to the complainant, namely, Avinash Kumar Singh, for Page 6 L.P.A. No. 275 of 2024 his examination who was complainant based upon that the FIR was also instituted and the preliminary enquiry was also conducted. The disciplinary authority has accepted the enquiry report and has passed the order of dismissal from service which has been admitted by the appellate as also the revisional authority. The order of dismissal has been challenged before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1889 of 2021 which has been dismissed, hence, the present appeal. 10. The issue which has been raised on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner are as follows: (i) The complainant has not been allowed to be examined rather no endeavour has been taken by the enquiry officer to secure his appearance. (ii) The complainant who was examined in the criminal case has not identified the appellant-writ petitioner as per the allegation that he was found to be there on the basis of the CCTV Footage. (iii) In the criminal case, the appellant-writ petitioner has been acquitted based upon the FIR only. The fact finding enquiry has been committed considering the informant of the criminal case to be the complainant. 11. All these issues are the issue which have been highlighted for the purpose of demonstrating that the cardinal principles of natural justice has not been followed. Further the complainant has refused to identify the appellant-writ petitioner before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction in which he has been acquitted based upon the aforesaid testimony of the complainant. 12. It needs to refer herein that the appellant-writ petitioner is a member of the discipline force working as Constable at the time when he was proceeded departmentally. Reference of the same is being given as the appellant-writ petitioner is a member of a discipline force and the Court is to consider the issue of discipline of the member of the discipline force Page 7 L.P.A. No. 275 of 2024 in its strict adherence but it also needs to refer herein that even though the delinquent is the member of discipline force then also the principle has been laid down for the purpose of following the procedure in the departmental proceeding is mandatorily to be followed and only then any order of punishment can be passed upon the members of the discipline force. 13. The issue of power of judicial review also needs to be referred herein so far as it relates to interfere with the order passed by the administrative authority in exercising the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, AIR 2015 SC 545, in particular to paragraph 13, laying down following guidelines which are self-explanatory: “13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary erroneously authority inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; had i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. admitted Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; Page 8 L.P.A. No. 275 of 2024 (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its based. conscience.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in Management of State Bank of India vs. Smita Sharad Deshmukh and Anr., (2017) 4 SCC 75, has laid down that it is equally settled position of law that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can certainly interfere with the quantum of punishment, if it is found disproportionate to the gravity of offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali, AIR (2017) SC 200, has laid down following guidelines at paragraph 8 for interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment imposed on conclusion of the departmental proceeding, which is quoted herein below: “8. Contrary to findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the High Court accepted the version of the Respondent that he fell ill and was being treated by a local doctor without assigning any reasons. It was held by the Disciplinary Authority that the Unit had better medical facilities which could have been availed by the Respondent if he was really suffering from illness. It was further held that the delinquent did not produce any evidence of treatment by a local doctor. The High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts which tantamounts to reappreciation of evidence. It is settled law that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.