Rajeev Kumar Ravi … … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1756 of 2013 Rajeev Kumar Ravi … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Director General of Police, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Inspector General of Police, Dhurwa, Ranchi 4. The Deputy Inspector General, Doranda, Ranchi 5. The Commandant, JAP-3 G, Govindpur, Dhanbad. … … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner For the State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate Mr. Rajan, Advocatge Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to SC-II 14/22.02.2024 2. Heard the parties. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order issued vide memo no. 975, dated 10.04.2012, passed by the respondent no. 5 whereby he has been dismissed from the service as also the appellate order dated 19.07.2012 affirming the order passed by respondent no. 5. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him on the post of constable no. 394, Jharkhand Arms Police – 3 G Company. 3. Case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable and posted in Jharkhand Arms Police, Govindpur, District – Dhanbad on the basis of his selection as Constable on 04.09.2006 and he was discharging his duties with devotion. A departmental proceeding no. 6/11 was initiated against the petitioner in connection with various charges. Thereafter, the Commandant, vide his order dated 11.01.2012, stopped payment of his salary and vide order dated 12.01.2012, he has been put under suspension. Petitioner was neither served with the enquiry report nor opportunity was given to defend himself. The appeal preferred by the RC/ 2 petitioner was also dismissed and as such he has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 4. Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, learned Sr. Counsel representing petitioner assisted by Mr. Aishwarya Prakash and Mr. Rajan vociferously argues that the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law. It is settled principles of law that non-serving of the enquiry report along with the second show-cause notice is sine qua non. It has further been argued that before passing order of dismissal, it was incumbent upon the respondents authorities to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner. Leaned counsel further argues that said principles of law found strength from the celebrated Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84. Learned counsel further argues that Rule 843 of the Police Manual has not been followed. It is requirement of law that before holding the petitioner guilty or absconder, Police Station of the District in which petitioner was residing, ought to have been informed. In absence of all these and settled law, the impunged orders are not tenable in the eyes of law and the same are fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further argues that the appellate authority without appreciating contention of the petitioner, has affirmed order of the disciplinary authority mechanically, which is also capricious and not tenable in the eyes of law. The orders are cryptic, capricious and fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to learned SC-II vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and further argues that the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is unbecoming of a Police officer to abscond himself and indulge himself in such types of activities. Members of the police force are required to maintain discipline but the same was not taken care of by the petitioner and, therefore, no interference is warranted. The writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel submits that admittedly petitioner was not served notice along with second show-cause notice since he was absconder and not traceable. Merely because notice was not served, it RC/ 3 cannot be said that petitioner was prejudiced. In view of proven facts, the impugned orders are fully justified and rightly order of dismissal has been issued. No interference is warranted by this Court. 6. Having heard rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this
Decision
Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of following facts and reasons: (i) After hearing the parties, this Court had called for entire records of the departmental proceeding. From perusal of record itself, learned counsel for the respondents is able to demonstrate that notices were not served to the petitioner along with the second show-cause notice. Further, it has been candidly submitted that since petitioner was absconder notices could not have been served. This plea of the respondents is not accepted to this Court. The law is well settled. Before visiting any order of civil or evil consequences, the cardinal principles of natural justice has to be adhered to. (ii) Without assigning any cogent reason, without issuance of second show-cause notice, the punishment is not tenable in the eyes of law. (iii) Petitioner had an unblemished service career but the same was not considered by the respondents while inflicting harsh punishment to him. The respondents ought to have considered his unblemished service career. (iv) The issue regarding prejudice caused by the petitioner, it is well settled in the case of Managing Director, ECIL & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 that by non- serving of the enquiry report and the second show-cause notice, petitioner is bound to be prejudiced. (v) It is settled legal propositions that issuance of 2nd show-cause notice along with copy of inquiry report is sine qua non and inflicting the punishment without seeking reply by way of 2nd show-cause notice is not tenable in the eyes of law. (vi) Petitioner was not aware that what was running in the mind of the respondents while inflicting punishment unless and until the show- RC/ 4 7. 8. cause is duly replied. The stand of the petitioner could not have been made known to the respondents before inflicting punishment. The best course would be to remand the matter back to the respondent authorities for proceeding afresh from the stage of issuance of show-cause notice along with the enquiry report but since almost twelve years have passed, the purpose of remand will not be solved. As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order issued vide memo no. 975, dated 10.04.2012, passed by the respondent no. 5 whereby he has been dismissed from the service as also the appellate order dated 19.07.2012 affirming the order passed by respondent no. 5, are hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated into the services with 25% backwages. 9. The writ petition stands allowed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/