The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2016 --------- Neeraj Kumar Pandey, son of Manik Chandra Pandey, resident of Chatra Camp Piparwar, P.O. & P.S., Chatra, District Chatra ..… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police-Cum-Appellate Authority, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 3.The Commandant-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Chatra Camp, Jharkhand Armed Police, Piparwar, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, District Chatra ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD For the Petitioner ---------- : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Navneet Toppo, A.C. to G.P.-I --------- ORAL ORDER IN COURT 08/26.07.2024 This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the Order dated 24.8.2015, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police-cum-Appellate Authority, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi (i.e. Respondent No.2), whereby the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment has been dismissed and for quashing the order dated 30.11.2014, passed by the Commandant-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Chatra Camp, Jharkhand Armed Police (i.e. Respondent No.3), by which the petitioner has been punished to the extent that pay-scale of the petitioner has been 1 converted into basic pay for a period of Five years and there shall be no effect on increment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 30.11.2014, passed by Respondent No. 3-Commandant-cum- Disciplinary Authority, Chatra Camp, Jharkhand Armed Police and the Appellate Order dated 24.8.2015, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police-cum-Appellate Authority, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner for assaulting Sunil Kumar Soren, Provost-A.S.I and Hawaldar Debashish Bishwas and Shambhu Charan Sewaiya is not correct. It is submitted that the petitioner has been victimized by the Controlling Officer as has several persons, namely Santosh Kr. Choudhary, Harendra Kr. Suman, Shahid Afridi, Sunil Kr. Gautam, Jogender Singh had also allegedly assaulted the complainant Sunil Kr. Soren, Provost- A.S.I. However, the enquiry proceeded only against the petitioner. It is submitted that Sunil Kumar Soren was not examined during the proceeding. It is submitted that the other injured Debashish Bishwas has not got himself examined before the doctor of the Department, rather he claimed to have been treated in M.G.M. Hospital at Jamshedpur, but no supporting papers of the medical treatment has been produced on record. It is further submitted that the statement of Hawaldar 2 Shambhu Charan Sewaiya is also not correct as he has falsely implicated the petitioner. It is submitted that there was a sudden huge hue and cry on 09.4.2014 in the camp premises of the police force involving a number of persons, but only the petitioner has been victimized by giving major punishment by placing him in lower scale and hence, impugned orders may be set aside. 3.
Legal Reasoning
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted that the impugned Order dated 30.11.2014, passed by Respondent No. 3-Commandant-cum- Disciplinary Authority, Chatra Camp, Jharkhand Armed Police and the Order dated 24.8.2015, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police-cum-Appellate Authority, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi are fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner Neeraj Kumar Pandey by the complainant Sunil Soren and it is supported by the statement of Hawaldar Debashish Bishwas and Hawaldar Shambhu Charan Sewaiya. It is submitted that even the petitioner has falsely stated that injured Hawaldar Debashish Bishwash had demanded Rs.4,000/- from him on the name of spare parts of riffle without complaining to any superior officer and therefore, the Controlling Officer has rightly found him guilty of gross indiscipline, negligence and recalcitrance, hence 3 the Enquiry Officer has rightly found him guilty for assaulting said Sunil Kumar Soren, Debashish Bishwas and Shambhu Charan Sewaiya. It is submitted that the Enquiry Report and Second show- cause Notice were also served upon the petitioner vide Letter dated 12.9.2014, i.e. Annexure-D. Thereafter, the impugned order of punishment has been passed on 30.11.2014 (Annexure-8) by the Respondent No. 3- Commandant-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Chatra Camp, Jharkhand Armed Police, who has agreed with the finding of the Controlling Officer. It is submitted that even the Deputy Inspector General of Police-cum- Appellate Authority, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and hence, this writ petition may be dismissed. 4. Perused the record of this case and considered the submission of both sides. 5. It appears that a complaint was filed by one Sunil Soren, Provost A.S.I. on 30.4.2014 against several persons, namely, Harendra Kumar Suman, Santosh Kr. Chowdhary, Neeraj Kr. Pandey (i.e. the petitioner), Shahid Afridi, Sunil Kr. Gautam, Yogendra Singh, however, the date of complaint has been mentioned neither in the impugned Order dated 30.11.2014, passed by Respondent No.3- Commandant - cum- Disciplinary Authority, Chatra Camp, Jharkhand Armed Police nor in the Order dated 24.8.2015, passed by the Deputy Inspector 4 General of Police-cum-Appellate Authority, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi. 6. It also appears that several persons, namely Harendra Kumar Suman, Santosh Kr. Chowdhary, Shahid Afridi, Sunil Kr. Gautam, Yogendra Singh were involved in the occurrence, but the enquiry was conducted only against this petitioner, namely Neeraj Kumar Pandey. 7. It further reveals that even during Departmental Proceeding, complainant Sunil Soren was not examined as he had died by that time and thus, non-examination of the complainant has caused prejudice to the case of this petitioner also. 8. From the report of the Enquiry Officer, it would appear that he had examined one Debashish Bishwas and who was also cross-examined by the petitioner and it emerges from the evidence of said Debashish Bishwas that for his alleged serious injury on his shoulder, he claimed to have been treated at M.G.M. Hospital, Jamshedpur instead of the local hospital of the Department as well as C.C.L. Hospital, Ranchi, after taking leave. Apart from this, even the medical prescriptions for treatment of injury of Debashish Bishwas have not been brought on record during the Departmental Proceeding and thus, the allegation is not proved. 9. It even appears from the evidence of said Debashish Bishwas, which was recorded earlier 5 by Dhanpati Sewaiya, i.e. the Enquiry Officer on 11.5.2014, as contained in Annexure B, that Debashish Bishwas alleged against one Santosh Kr. Chowdhary, Niraj Kumar Pandey and Bishwajeet Prasad Gupta, however, during his cross-examination, he only named this petitioner. 10. It also appears from the preliminary report Dhanpati Sewaiya, In-Charge S.I.-cum-Conducting Officer, that other injured Constable Shambhu Charan Sewaiya had named the ‘Mantri’ of the Association of the Force, namely Santosh Kr. Chowdhary, Bishwajeet Prasad Gupta (Police/266), Shahid Afridi (Police/311), Sadhucharan Prasad (Police/445), Amit Kumar Singh (Police/478) and Krishna Kumar (Police/508) for assaulting him along with this writ petitioner. However, during his cross-examination before the Enquiry Officer/Conducting Officer, he has named only this petitioner. 11. It further transpires from the preliminary enquiry report dated 11.5.2014 that several other witnesses, i.e. A.S.I. Netaji Pathak, A.S.I. Rama Shankar Jha, A.S.I Ram Pravesh Singh Hawaldar Vinod Kumar Singh, Constable Satyendra Tiwary, Police/79 Nikodin Dhan, Police/363 Harwendra Kumar Suman, Hawaldar Kaushal Kishore Singh, Hawaldar Ajij Hussain, Hawaldar Anil Kr. Ram have stated that electricity was cut and they could not identify anyone as its was dark Even A.S.I.-Ram Pravesh Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh (Police/173) had stated in their statements that they have neither prohibited any person from lodging the F.I.R. nor advised 6 anything regarding the matter and thus, the Enquiry Officer has held all the police personnel guilty and submitted his enquiry report. 12. It transpires from the perusal of the Enquiry Report at Annexure-C of the Counter Affidavit that Dhanpati Sewaiya, A.S.I.-cum-Enquiry Officer has merely held the petitioner guilty on the basis of report submitted by Sunil Soren, who was not examined and thus, the report of Dhanpati Sewaiya, A.S.I.-cum-Enquiry Officer appears to be exaggerated one. 13. It also appears that A.S.I.-Ram Pravesh Singh had stated before the Conducting Officer that he has not seen anyone as it was dark. 14. It also appears that Debashish Bishwas has given evidence against the petitioner by stating that petitioner had assaulted him due to which he sustained several injuries on his shoulder. However, during cross- examination he stated that instead of getting himself treated by the Doctor of the Department or at the C.C.L. Hospital, he went to M.G.M. Hospital, Jamshedpur for his treatment. He also stated that he has not got himself treated at the C.C.L. Hospital as he was asked not to get treatment from the said Hospital by his seniors, namely Pradip Kumar Singh, S.I., Sunil Soren, Provost-A.S.I. and Rampravesh Singh, A.S.I. 15. Thus, the allegation of assaulting Hawaldar Debashis Bishwas is not proved against this petitioner. 16. It further transpires that Hawaldar Shambhu Charan Sewaiya stated that he was assaulted 7 by Santosh Kumar Chowdhary (Police-24), Shahid Afridi (Police-311), Amit Kumar Singh (Police-478), Neeraj Kumar Pandey (Police-44), i.e. the petitioner, Krishna Kumar (Police-508), Sadhu Charan Prasad (Police-445), Bishwajit Prasad Gupta-Police266) assaulted him and for which he was treated at Area Hospital, Piparwar, but the proceeding has been drawn only against this petitioner separately. 17. It also appears that witness No.s 6, 7 and 8, namely Hawaldar Binod Kr. Singh, Hawaldar Satyendra Tiwari and Ajay Kumar Singh (Police-173) respectively have not named this petitioner. 18. Thus, from the report of the Enquiry Officer, it is evident that the occurrence involved a number of police personnel but only the petitioner is implicated while other police personnels have been let off. 19. It appears that the Deputy Inspector General of Police-cum-Appellate Authority, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi has also not considered the facts mentioned above while passing the impugned Appellate Order dated 24.08.2015. 20. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that Lowering of Pay Scale is a major punishment, which has been done in the present case without holding the regular Departmental Proceeding and Rule 824 of the Police Manual provides for different punishments in Departmental Proceeding, whereas Rule 828 describes that items in Serial No.s (a) to (f) of the Rule 824 shall be regarded as Major punishment and shall be inflicted by an officer not below the rank of the Superintendent. 8 21. At this stage, it is relevant to quote description of departmental punishments in Rule 824 & Rule 828, which read as follows: “Rule 824:- Description of departmental punishments.— The following punishments which are sanctioned under inflicted Section 7 of Act V of 1861 may be departmentally on a police officer of and below the rank of Inspector :— (a) Dismissal, (b) removal. (c) compulsory retirement. (d) reduction in rank. (e) forfeiture of last increment(s) or future increment(s), (f) black mark or marks, (g) censure, (h) confinement to quarters for a period not exceeding 15 days, (i) punishment drill, (j) extra guard or fatigue duty. Provided that the punishments mentioned in clauses (h) and (j) shall be imposed only on members of rank of constables/Havildars and that in clause (i) shall be imposed only on constables.” “Rule 828:- Infliction of major punishments.- (a) Of the punishments permitted by rule 824, the items in serial (a) to (f) of that rule shall be regarded as major punishments, and shall be inflicted by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent. (b) Without prejudice to the provision of the Public Servants Enquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction shall be passed on any police officer (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is 9 proposed to take action, and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. ” 22. The case of the petitioner falls under the Rule 824 (e), which appears to be a major punishment in terms of Rule 828 of the Police Manual. 23. Thereafter, it is evident that no notice in writing was issued to the petitioner about the proposed action to be taken against him in the light of Rule 828 (b) of the Police Manual. 24. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the Rules mentioned above, the Punishment Order dated 30.11.2014, passed by Respondent No.3- Commandant - cum- Disciplinary Authority, Chatra Camp, Jharkhand Armed Police and the Appellate Order dated 24.8.2015, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police-cum-Appellate Authority, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi (i.e. Respondent No.3) are set aside. 25. Thus, This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 26.07.2024 N.A.F.R./s.m. 10