Shyam Narayan Bhashkar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand at Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7915 of 2012 Shyam Narayan Bhashkar ... ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand at Ranchi 3. The Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh Police Ranchi, 5. The Inspector General of Police, Bokaro 6. Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Enquiry Officer-cum-S.D.P.O. Barhi, Hazaribagh …. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, J.C. to A.G.
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate 02/25.11.2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 11.05.2011 whereby, the penalty of 2 black-mark has been inflicted upon the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection on maintainability of this writ petition contending that the petitioner has not availed of statutory remedy of appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the order of penalty dated 11.05.2011 suffers from apparent illegality which is manifest on the face of record therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. 5. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, I proceed to decide this writ petition. 2 6. The brief facts of the case are that, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the charge-sheet dated 04.08.2009 was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that he did not submit the supplementary charge-sheet in time and therefore, the accused was granted bail in terms of Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under : 7. “ That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph-2, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same hence require no comment. 8. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph-3 to 6, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same is an accepted from the answering respondent, hence required no comment. 9. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph-7, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that due to non-submission of charge- sheet within period prescribed under section-167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure one of the accused Satish Singh was allowed bail by the Learned Court and this petitioner was the Investigating Officer of the case at the time of forwarding the accused before the Court concern. The accused Satish Singh was forwarded by this petitioner and it was his duty to submit Charge-sheet within stipulated period but he did not perform his duty seriously and lawfully and due to this latches accused was granted bail by the Court. In this concern forwarding letter may be perused. 10. That with regard to the statement made by the 3 petitioner in paragraph-8, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the Annexure-6 of the writ application, bears a charge-sheet no. 180/07 dated 20.09.2007 and last page of the charge sheet clearly shows that at the time of submitting this charge-sheet accused Satish Singh was absconder and against him investigation was continued. But after one year and four months Satish Singh was forwarded by this petitioner to the Court on dated 13.01.2009, so it was the duty of this petitioner to submit charge-sheet but he failed to perform his duty. Though Charge-sheet no. 180/07 was submitted by the S.I. Sri Niwas but in that charge- sheet investigation was shown continued as because two accused persons were absconding and later on one Satish Singh was arrested and forwarded by this petitioner. So only the petitioner was duty bound to submit charge-sheet but he failed.” 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was never made Investigating Officer of the case. A plea has been taken by the petitioner that in this proceeding the Enquiry Officer also found that though the petitioner was not the Investigating Officer in the case, however, since the petitioner was Officer-in-Charge of the police station therefore, the charge against the petitioner has been found proved. 9. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was the Investigating Officer of the case and he did not submit supplementary charge-sheet in time and therefore, a departmental 4 proceeding was initiated against him. 10. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that the Enquiry Officer has concluded that since the petitioner was officer-in-charge of the police station, he was responsible for supervising the case and even if he was not the Investigating Officer, he should have started writing the case diary. The petitioner has taken a specific plea during the departmental proceeding that he was not the
Decision
Investigating Officer in the case, and in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated the stand taken by him in the departmental proceeding that he was not the Investigating Officer of the case bearing Barhi P.S. Case No. 129 of 2007. Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. is extracted below: 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. (1)“Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty- four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is is well founded, the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub- inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.” 11. Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. indicates that the charge-sheet would be submitted by the Investigating Officer however, an accused who has been arrested may 5 be forwarded to the Court either by the Investigating Officer or by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. In the present case it appears that the petitioner was Officer-in-Charge of Barhi Police Station and forwarded the accused in the Court and sought his remand. From the record it appears that he was never made Investigating Officer in Barhi P.S. Case No. 129 of 2007, rather one Jitendra Dubey was the Investigating Officer who submitted the charge-sheet. In the present proceeding the specific stand taken by the petitioner that he was not the Investigating Officer of the case, has not been controverted by the respondents by producing any material on record to indicate that the petitioner was made the Investigating Officer in the said case. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the order of penalty is illegal and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Satyarthi/A.F.R. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)