Manish Kumar Tiwary … v. 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Home
Case Details
1 W.P. (S) No. 5373 of 2007 [In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India] Manish Kumar Tiwary ….. Petitioner ............ Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Ranchi. 2. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Police Headquarters, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi. 4. The Commandant, JAP-4, Bokaro ..... Respondents …........... For the Petitioner : Mr. Delip Jerath, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Saket Upadhyay, J.C. to A.G. …................. P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ............. By Court Challenging the penalty order dated 07.05.2003, whereby the petitioner was discharged from service, the appellate order dated 17.06.2004 and the revisional order dated 29.03.2007, whereby the appeal and the revision application preferred by the petitioner were dismissed by the authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, on 29.04.2002 a charge-memo was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that on 28.10.2001, the petitioner had gone to the house of Gyanendra Kumar Pandey and pressurized him to get his younger sister-in-law married to him. He threatened the said Gyanendra Kumar Pandey with serious consequences of 2 kidnapping of his sister-in-law. On 08.12.2001 and 10.12.2001 the petitioner went to the house of the said Gyanendra Kumar Pandey and pressurized and threatened him again. An enquiry was conducted and during the enquiry, the department examined 3 witnesses and the petitioner produced 2 witnesses in his defence. Penalty order dated 07.05.2003 was passed whereby the petitioner has been discharged from service. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under :
Legal Reasoning
6. “That it is further stated that in the year 2001 while the petitioner was deputed to the office of Inspector General of Police (Operation), Ranchi a complaint was filed against the petitioner by Sri Prabhu Nath Panday resident of Patratu Thermal Power Station, Hazaribagh to the Commandant, Bihar Military Police-4, Bokaro copy to Director General of Police (Vigilance) Ranchi wherein he alleged that the petitioner taking advantage of his position in Police Department, was harassing his family members by way of lodging false cases in various Police Stations of Ranchi and had threatened to kidnap his daughter in case they failed to get her married to the petitioner. 7. That it is further stated and submitted that the then Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro directed the Assistant Commandant, Sri M.K. Mittu to conduct an enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner and submit a detailed report. 8. That it is further stated and submitted that in compliance with the order of the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro the then Assistant Commandant conducted an enquiry into the matter and submitted his report vide Memo no. 149/Asst. Co. dated 31.12.2001 wherein he found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him and recommended disciplinary action for the same. 3 9. That it is further stated and submitted that simultaneously another application was submitted by Sri Gyanendra Kumar alleging the similar misbehaviour by the petitioner which was also enquired into by Sri M.K. Mittu, the then Assistant Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro wherein the allegations were found correct and disciplinary action was recommended. 10. That it is further stated and submitted that on the basis of above mentioned enquiry reports and complaint petitions, a Departmental Proceeding no. 08/02 was initiated against the petitioner and Sri Shivjee Singh, Inspector of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro was appointed as the Conducting Officer. 11. That it is further stated and submitted that the Departmental Proceeding was duly conducted wherein the petitioner was given sufficient time to defend himself and given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. 12. That it is further stated and submitted that the Conducting Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him on the basis of which the then Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro dismissed the petitioner from service vide Memo no. 913/RO dated 07.05.2003.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the enquiry officer has failed to consider the defence of the petitioner in as much as, he has not taken into consideration the 2 cases lodged by the petitioner and the evidence of the mother of the petitioner. Enquiry officer disbelieved the evidence of the mother of the petitioner, on the ground that 4 every mother would depose only in favour of her son. He has further submitted that the enemity between the parties has been admitted and it has also come on record that even before issuance of the charge-memo, the petitioner had already lodged a First Information Report which after investigation, was found true. The petitioner had suffered two injuries and the injury report was brought on record. Subsequently, also a second First Information Report was lodged by the petitioner on 08.12.2001. However, the defence of the petitioner that the father of the girl namely, Prabhu Nath Pandey and brother-in-law Gyanendra Kumar Pandey had been pressurizing the petitioner for getting himself married with the girl namely, Priyanka has not been considered in right perspective. He has further submitted that during the period of his service, the petitioner has been given several citations and cash rewards. There is no other misconduct reported against the petitioner and there is serious doubt in so far as, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is concerned and therefore, the penalty of discharge from service is excessive and disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. 6. As against the above, Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the enquiry which was conducted, was fair and impartial and the petitioner was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The said 5 Prabhu Nath Pandey and Gyanendra Kumar Pandey have been examined during the departmental enquiry and they have supported the allegation levelled against the petitioner and there is no reason to disbelieve the allegation levelled against the petitioner. The charge has been found true and therefore, the disciplinary authority has inflicted the order of discharge from service. He has further submitted that since the appellate authority as well as revisional authority have dismissed the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner and the facts found against the petitioner have been confirmed, therefore, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 1993 SC 1478, (1993)