Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi v. Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 7710 of 2013 Shamim Ahmad, son of late Rasul Baksh, resident of Village: Sadatpur, P.O. Paighambarpur, P.S. Kanti, Dist. Muzaffarpur, Bihar, presently Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Pandra O.P., P.O. Pandra, P.S. Pandra, Dist. Ranchi, Petitioner Jharkhand … … 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Versus Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, Dist. Palamau 4. Superintendent of Police, Latehar, P.O. Latehar, P.S. Latehar, Dist. Latehar … … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Advocate --- 09/12.01.2024 1. 2. Learned counsels for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/Order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of ‘Certiorari’ for quashing the order dated 03.04.2013 passed by Disciplinary Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range, Daltonganj whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 3 has passed the order of punishment i.e. the Petitioner will be paid basic pay of Assistant Sub Inspector for next 6 months and during the said period he would not be given charge of investigation. b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) upon the Respondents for stay of Impugned order dated 03.04.2013 till the matter is sub-judice. And/Or And/Or c) Pass such order/writ/direction as your Lordship may deem fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordance with law.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that during the departmental proceeding, proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses has not been given. He has submitted that the enquiry report was also not provided to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as the charge was concerned, it was alleged that the petitioner did not enquire into the First Information Report filed and registered as Manika P.S. Case No. 60/2009. The learned counsel has submitted that the trial Court had passed an order dated 28.03.2011, wherein it 2 was recorded that due to lack of knowledge, the petitioner had inadvertently submitted the final form in the case being convinced from the fact that he had already filed a petition for further investigation in Manika P.S. Case No. 60/2009. The order of the learned trial court has been placed on record. 4. The learned counsel during the course of argument has submitted that the petitioner has already superannuated from service and he has fairly submitted that the impact of the order of punishment does not survive anymore. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and going through the records of this case, it appears that the petitioner was the investigating officer in Manika P.S. Case No. 60/2009 dated 09.09.2009 registered under Sections 341/342/323/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently converted under Sections 419/420/406/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Vide charge-memo dated 21.04.2011 issued to the petitioner, it was alleged that the petitioner did not complete the investigation of the said criminal case properly which reflected dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to file a show-cause and a departmental enquiry against the petitioner was initiated. A copy of the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner to the charge has not been placed on record. However, a copy of the enquiry report has been placed which is dated 09.06.2012. 8. Upon perusal of the enquiry report, it has been recorded that the petitioner did not file any explanation or response to the charge in spite of repeated opportunities but the petitioner had appeared before the enquiry officer just once. The enquiry officer has recorded these aspects of the matter in paragraph-4 of the enquiry report and has recorded that despite repeated opportunities the petitioner was not participating and was unnecessarily delaying the matter and also considered the fact that the petitioner did not give any response to the charge-sheet. The said authority found the petitioner guilty of the charges and thereafter a note was also prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar recommending for dismissal of the petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner was again granted an opportunity concerning the proposed punishment to which he responded on 05.04.2013. In the said reply also, no such grievance has been raised by the petitioner that he had not received a copy of the enquiry report but had simply stated in paragraph 26 of his reply that as 3 per law findings of the enquiry report is to be forwarded and has referred to certain judgments. The disciplinary authority has considered the materials on record and has passed a detailed order and has taken care of the fact that the order of dismissal would be disproportionate to the charges leveled and proved against the petitioner and passed an order to place the petitioner to the minimum pay-scale only for a period of 6 months. 9. The enquiry report gives various dates on which the petitioner was asked to participate in the proceedings but the petitioner had been negligent in the matter of participation before the enquiry officer and apparently, he had attended the proceedings only once. The petitioner was non-cooperative in the enquiry proceedings arising out of the allegation that the petitioner had not investigated the aforesaid criminal case properly. The petitioner had appeared only once during the enquiry proceedings and no cogent explanation has been given by the petitioner for subsequent non-appearances in the enquiry. 10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and the nature of punishment involved in the present case which is minor in nature, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment. This Court finds no illegality in the impugned order and proceedings calling for any interference in the limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)