Rajesh Ram, Aged about-42 Years, Son of Late Vipat Ram, Resident of Nepali Colony v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2878 of 2023 Rajesh Ram, Aged about-42 Years, Son of Late Vipat Ram, Resident of Nepali Colony, Hesag, Bocso Nagar, Shiv Temple, P.O.-Hatiya, P.S. Hatiya, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. Versus … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through Inspector- cum-Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand, at Police Head Quarter, Near Project Building, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Ranchi, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ranchi, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. 4. The Commandant, I.R.B.-5 Gumla, Camp- Mukhyalaya, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Gumla, P.O., P.S. & District-Gumla. … Respondents … --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Amrit Anunay, Advocate : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I --- 06/03.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in Memo No.- 73 dated-17.06.2021 contained in Annexure-I of this writ petition passed by Respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder the respondent no.-4 has punished the petitioner has to withheld two increment of his salary without any cogent ground only to wrong appreciation regarding F.I.R. has lodged against the petitioner under I.P.C. as well as POCSO Act. Inspite of petitioner has acquitted from their charge, which was levelled upon the petitioner, thereafter respondent authority neither has not considered the grievance of the petitioner nor to recall the order in which petitioner has punished to withheld his salary as well as dues amount of suspension period as well as other benefit with interest.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was constable in Gumla under IRB-5 Camp- Mukhyalaya, Dhurwa, and at that time one First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner under sections 452, 354(A) of Indian Penal Code and under section 4/6 of POCSO Act. The petitioner was suspended by the respondents and he was subjected to departmental proceeding as well as criminal case arising out of the same incident. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was found guilty and punishment was also imposed. The learned counsel submits that so far as the criminal case is concerned, the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 351 of 2020 (Special POCSO Case No. 31 of 2020) vide judgment dated 29.11.2022. 4. The learned counsel further submits that against the judgment passed in the departmental proceeding dated 17.06.2021, the petitioner filed appeal but the appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings were arising out of the same incident and the fact remains that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case subsequently. He submits that the appellate authority ought to have taken this aspect of the matter into consideration and should not have dismissed the appeal mechanically by stating it to be barred by limitation and at least an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to explain the reasons for delay. He submits that the appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2023. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the acquittal in the criminal case has a direct bearing in the matter and therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, the appellate authority be directed to look into the matter in the light of the judgment of acquittal which arises out of the same incident. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents though has opposed the prayer, but he does not dispute the fact that arising out of the same incident both, departmental proceeding as well as the criminal case, were instituted and the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. However, he submits that the impact of the acquittal in the criminal case has to be seen in the light of the fact as to whether the petitioner has been honourably acquitted or he has been just given benefit of doubt, and other materials which are on 2 record. He submits that it has also to be seen as to whether there are same set of evidences in both the cases. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that arising of the same incident, a criminal case as well as departmental proceeding was initiated. The petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceeding and was also punished vide order contained in Memo No. 73 dated 17.06.2021 and in the criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 29.11.2022. It further appears that after acquittal in the criminal case the petitioner filed appeal on 20.01.2023 which was forwarded by the Commandant to the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide his letter dated 10.02.2023 and the appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2023 on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 9. There is no doubt that the departmental proceedings are examined in the light of principles of pre-ponderance of probabilities and in the matter of criminal proceedings, the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. However, at the same time, the impact of acquittal in the criminal case on the departmental proceeding is also an important consideration particularly in circumstances where both departmental proceeding and the criminal case arise out of the same incident. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority, before dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, ought to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, for the ends of justice the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is hereby set-aside and remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on the point of delay as well as on the impact of acquittal in the criminal case. The petitioner shall file an appropriate petition explaining the delay in filing the appeal along with a copy of this order and a copy of the writ records within a period of two months from today. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the consequence of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is required to be 3 considered by the appellate authority in the light of the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court as may be relied upon by the petitioner and/or the department and one such judgement is dated 04.12.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 (1) JBCJ 65 (SC) (Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan). 12. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order after
Decision
granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 13. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4