Harekrishna Pandey v. Inspector General

Heard Mr. Siddharth Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Order dated 11.12.2017 ( i.e. Annexure-7 ), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh ( Respondent No. 3 ) and Order dated 1

25.10.2018 (i.e. Annexure-8), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Respondent No. 2, D.I.G., North Chottanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that for the same set of charges, i.e. Charges No.2, 3 and 4 the petitioner has been punished twice as petitioner was punished earlier also for the aforesaid charges and he was given punishment of withholding of increment of five days, withholding of increment of increment of Sixteen days and withholding of Six months increment, which is equivalent to one Black Mark for Charges No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively and which amounts to double jeopardy. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in Lt. Governor, Delhi and Others Versus HC Narinder Singh reported in (2004) 13 SCC 342.

4. It is submitted that so far as Charge No. 1 is concerned, petitioner could not attend the training as he had received the Memo for the training after much delay and he had proceeded, but the petitioner (Police Force No.555) was not allowed to attend the training along with five other persons, bearing Police Force No. 416, 553, 660, 186, 428 etc. . It is submitted that the petitioner had been appointed on compassionate ground. It is further 2 submitted punishment highly disproportionate to the gravity of offence committed by him and as such he may be given one opportunity to mend himself and hence, the impugned order may be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the impugned Order dated 11.12.2017 (i.e. Annexure-7), passed by the Respondent No. 3-Superintendent Police, Hazaribagh and Order dated 25.10.2018 (i.e. Annexure-8), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the D.I.G., North Chottanagpur Division, Hazaribagh (i.e. Respondent No. 2,) are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is highly indisciplined and unfit to be in a Disciplined Force like JAP and he has disobeyed the order of the superior officers and he has never attended the training for the last Six years prior to his dismissal from services.

6. It is submitted that although the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2008, but he never attended any training conducted on four different occasions. However, learned counsel respondent-State fairly admitted that pursuant to the Order dated 16.01.2023, passed by the Co-ordinate 3 Bench of this Court (Justice Ananda Sen), supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on

27.03.2023 on behalf of Respondent No. 3, i.e. Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh and fairly submitted that the petitioner has been punished earlier for Charge No. 2, 3 and 4 by the Competent Authority, however, no order was passed with regard to Charge No. 1 earlier. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that as a matter of fact, the contention of the petitioner is not correct for receiving the command of first training after a delay of 28 days, rather the petitioner had received the command earlier, but he deliberately did not report for training on the scheduled date. It is submitted that act of the petitioner amounts to gross indiscipline and insubordination and dereliction of duty and hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and hence, this writ petition may be dismissed.

7. Having heard learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.A.G.-III and on perusal of the record of this case, it appears that a number of counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Respondent State on different occasions. The first counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State on 17.10.2019. Thereafter, the second counter affidavit has been filed 4 again on behalf of the State, by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (i.e. Respondent No.3) on 17.6.2021 and the third counter affidavit has been filed on

27.03.2023. Finally, the fourth counter affidavit has been filed on 05.01.2024 on behalf of the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh and from which it appears that the Notice has been served upon the petitioner for the Training through the Sergeant Major. The act of the Respondent No. 3 clearly shows that Respondent No. 3 was chasing the petitioner instead of serving the notice upon the petitioner through proper person.

8. Having gone through the records of the case, this Court finds that even the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (i.e. Respondent No.3), by filing counter affidavit dated 22.03.2023 has admitted at Paragraph No. 11 that the petitioner has already been punished for the Charges No. 2, 3 and 4.

9. It transpires that the Departmental Proceeding No. 50/14 was initiated against the petitioner and Memo of Charges was served on the petitioner on 11.3.2014 and the charges framed against the petitioner read as follows: (i) Returning back without completing training at Padma vide Hazaribagh District Order No. 1495/08 dated 18.7.2008. 5 (ii) Proceeded for Training at JAP-2 Tatisilwai, Ranchi vide Hazaribagh District Order No. 109/09 dated 23.01.2009, but returned back to Hazaribagh without completing training vide District Order No. 78/09 and District Order No. 296/09 (iii) Returning back again to District Hazaribagh without completing training from JAP-2, Tatisilwai, Ranchi vide District Order No. 351/11. (iv) Proceeded JAPTC, Padma Hazaribagh District Order No. 2432/ 12 dated 28.10.2012, Hazaribagh, but reported at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh on 13.5.2013 the Training Centre calling sick. Thereafter, he became absconder from the training Centre on 14.5.2013 at night.

10. It appears from the record that vide Order dated 20.04.2009, as contained in Annexure-4, passed by the then Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was given the punishment of withholding of increment of Five days for not completing training with regard to Charge No. 2. It further transpires that for Charge No. 3, the Superintendent of Police, JAP Training Centre, Tatisilwai, Ranchi has imposed punishment of withholding of increment of 16 days (i.e. Annexure-5). 6 It further transpires that for Charge No. 4, vide District Order No. 129/15, the S.P., Tatisilwai, Ranchi dated 25.02.2015 (i.e. Annexure-6) has imposed punishment of stoppage of increment of six months, which was equivalent to one Black Mark and which will not be effecting his next increment in the salary and he will not be paid anything more for the period of suspension except for the already paid subsistence allowance.

11. Thus, it is evident that for the same set of Charges No. 2, 3 and 4, for which he was earlier punished vide Order dated 20.4.2009 (i.e. Annexure- 4), Order dated 12.2.2011 (i.e. Annexure-5) and Order dated 25.2.2015 (i.e. Annexure-6), the petitioner has been punished earlier.

12. Thus, the cumulative punishment vide Order dated 11.02.2017 (i.e. Annexure-7) with regard to the clubbing the punishment for Charge No. 2, 3 and 4 with Charge No. 1 amounts to double jeopardy.

13. It has been held in Lt. Governor, Delhi and Others Versus HC Narinder Singh reported in (2004) 13 SCC 342 at Para 4 as follows:- "Para 4:- Reading of the show-cause notice suggests in continuation of the departmental proceedings. Lack of devotion to duty is mentioned as the reason for the proposed action which was the subject-matter of the earlier proceedings as well. The second proposed action based on the same cause of action proposing to deny promotion or reversion is 7 contemplated under the impugned show-cause notice. Second penalty based on the same cause of action would amount to double jeopardy. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in law in annulling such an action. We are not expressing any opinion on the ambit or scope of any rule.”

14. It appears that the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh has reopened the matter, which stood concluded earlier by imposing punishment and as such initiating Departmental Proceeding on 11.03.2014 for the same set of Charges, i.e Charges No. 2, 3 and 4 are not justified.

15. So far as Charge No. 1 is concerned, it appears that he could not complete the training and the finding of non-completion of training is also not properly proved as it reveals from Annexure-3 that apart from the petitioner, who is having Police Force No. 555, Five other Police Personnels, bearing Police Force No.s 416, 553, 660, 186, 428 etc. and several personnels had not reported for training and this shows that the petitioner was one of those persons who could not be served command within time and for which he cannot be found at fault with. Had it been a single case of not reporting to the Police Headquarter for training, the matter would have been different, but the Annexure-3, i.e. Letter dated

22.7.2005 indicates that several persons, including this petitioner had not reported for training and therefore, Charge No.1 has also not been proved against the petitioner. 8

16. It further transpires that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and authorities should have taken lenient view of the matter.

17. It has been held in the case of Color-Chem Ltd. Versus A.L. Alaspurkar And Others, reported in (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 192, in Paragraph 14 as under:- “So far as this point is concerned it has to be held that when the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the charges held proved against them reinstatement with continuity of service was the least that could have been ordered in their favour. There is no question of the appellant losing confidence in them. In this connection learned Senior Counsel for the appellant tried to submit that apart from going to sleep in the early hours of the morning when the night shift was coming to a close the machine was kept working and that would have created a hazard for the working of the plant and the possibility of an explosion was likely to arise. So far as this contention is concerned it must be stated that this was not the case of the management while framing the charge-sheets against the workmen. Not only that, there is not a whisper about the said eventuality and possibility in the evidence led by the management before the Labour Court. But that apart no such contention, even though mentioned in the written objections before the Labour Court, was ever pressed into service consideration before the Labour Court at the stage of arguments, nor any decision was invited on this aspect.”

18. On the facts and under the circumstances and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 9 mentioned above, Order of punishment dated 11.02.2017, i.e. (Annexure-7), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 3) in Departmental Proceeding No. 50/14 and the Appellate Order dated

25.10.2018 (i.e. Annexure-8) passed by the D.I.G., North Chottanagpur Division, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 2) are set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages and the S.P., Hazaribagh (Respondent No.3) is directed to pass fresh order, except the order of suspension, termination, removal, compulsory retirement, i.e. the petitioner may not be given major punishment for the present and the Respondent No. 3 shall take decision only on the quantum of punishment by imposing final punishment with a direction to remain careful in future taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground.

19. Although, this is not a subject matter of this case, but it would be desirable that the petitioner should also complete training as required under the Police Manual.

20. Thus, this writ petition is allowed with the observation and direction mentioned above. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 1st August, 2024 N.A.F.R./s.m. 10