Sarijuddin Momin v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Superintendent of Police, Deoghar 3.Superintendent of Police, Pakur 4.Deputy Inspector
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 7564 of 2011 Sarijuddin Momin … Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Superintendent of Police, Deoghar 3.Superintendent of Police, Pakur 4.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Area Dumka … Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Rita Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II ----------- 25/ 08.01.2024 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order no.1153/07 dated 03.07.07 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar and affirmed by the appellate authority Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Area Dumka vide dated 31.12.2015. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 3. In pursuant to the advertisement no.1/2004, petitioner was temporarily appointed on the post of constable by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar vide Letter no.19/2006 dated 06.01.2006. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar requested for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Pakur as regards character of the petitioner, as his permanent resident is the district of Pakur. In response to the same Superintendent of Police, Pakur forwarded its report no.769 dated 14.05.2007 stating therein that the petitioner-Sarijuddin Momin’s real village name is Sarifuddin Momin and both Sarijuddin Momin and Sarfuddin Momin are one and same person and that as against Sarifuddin Momin a case is lodged in the Pakur police Station bearing Pakur (T) P.S. Case No.155/2003 under Sections 337, 338, 379 and 201 of IPC and Sections 40 and 41 of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972. On the allegation made by one Shyam Sunder Choudhary, Forest Conservator on 22.08.2005 and 27.08.2005 two cases were lodged against Sarfuddin Momin vide OCR Nos.67/2006 and 79/2006 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. In -2- OCR No.79/2006 in place of Sarifuddin Momin, his younger brother namely, Taimuddin Momin, surrendered himself and was sent to jail. When this fact came into light, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate enquired the matter and upon finding the same true, initiated proceeding against Taimuddin Momin under Section 415 of the IPC, 1860. On the aforesaid report, the respondent nos.2 and 3 terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect without giving him any opportunity. It is stated that father of the petitioner Najumuddin Momin has three sons, namely (i) Sarijuddin Momin (petitioner), (ii) Sarifuddin Momin @ Taimuddin Momin and (iii) Karim Momin. It is evident from the voter identity cards of both persons duly issued by Election Commission that Sarijuddin Momin and Sarifuddin Momin @ Taimuddin Momin are two and different persons. Further from perusal of the photo identity card issued to the petitioner at the time of appointment by the District Force, Deoghar, it appears that the same is different and distinct from the photo of Sarifuddin Momin pasted on his voter identity card dated 19.03.2009. From perusal of driving licence issued to the petitioner bearing No.OLA: JH-16/33/10-11, it is apparent that the same is identical to the photograph pasted on the photo identity card issued to the petitioner by the District Force, Deoghar at Annexure-5 and that of photograph of the petitioner pasted on the voter identity cared dated 17.03.2009 at Annexure-4. Petitioner has passed his matriculation examination from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar in 2nd Division, as it is evident from certificate no.23608 dated 04.10.2002 issued by Vice Chancellor, Hindi Vidyapeeth Deoghar whereas Sarifuddin Momin is non- matriculate and has passed only 7th class. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajeeva Sharma assisted by Mrs. Rita Kumari argues that the order of termination/dismissal is not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that the same has been passed mechanically. Learned senior counsel further argues that this Court vide order dated 20.02.2023 had made a specific observation whether petitioner was ever put on trial and convicted in the said cases or not since Taimuddin Momin @ Sarifuddin Momin has been acquitted in criminal case and the present petitioner has not ever been arrested was put on trial. Learned senior counsel further argues that Court has to consider that the vital query made by this Court has not at all been met and admittedly the petitioner was never put -3- on trial, which finds support from the page-21 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. Learned senior counsel further argues that petitioner Sarijuddin Momin and Sarfuddin Momin are different persons and they are not one. The father of the petitioner has already deposed before the trial court and the same was never negated by way of any cross-examination. Learned senior counsel places heavy reliance on the appellate order and submits that from the appellate order of the trial court it appears that it is a case of no evidence. It appears from Annexure-1 that he has totally relied on OC report and as such in view of the trial court order the entire order of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority vitiates and can be termed as not an order in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned senior counsel further argues that the same has not even been considered by the authorities and any consideration on the order based on no evidence is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such the same is fit to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-State opposing the contention of the learned senior counsel submits that the law is well settled that merely because of the acquittal in trial court there cannot be reinstatement in the services. Learned counsel very fairly argues that that in view of the direction of this Court the matter has again been enquired and thereafter a specific affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel further argues that from paras-6, 7,
Decision
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, it appears that the impugned order is fully justified and there is no illegality in the same. Heavy reliance has been placed on para-11 of the counter-affidavit and it has been argued that Superintendent of Police, Deoghar has examined the records regarding identity of Sarijuddin Momin @ Sarifuddin Momin, Taimuddin Momin and Karim Momin, right from primary school records where they have studied, name and address of their parents, their educational qualification, their Aadhar Card, Voter ID Card, other identity cards as well as documents relating to the petitioner after his joining as a police constable. Thereafter referring to para-12 it has been argued that from all the documents it transpires that Sarijuddin Momin and Sarfuddin Momin are one and the same person. The father of the petitioner is -4- Najumuddin Momin and he has three sons namely Sarijuddin Momin @ Sarfuddin Momin, Taimuddin Momin and Kareem Momin. Thereafter referring to the para-13 that voter list of 2003, 2005 and 2009 the name of Sarifuddin Momin appears in place of husband of Ruksana Bibi whereas in the voter list of 2010, 2014 and 2023 the name of husband of Ruksana Bibi is mentioned as Sarijuddin Momin. Further para-14, it has been stated that Rukasana Bibi herself has declared that her husband is Sarifuddin Momin as in Pakur Nagar P.S. Case No.75 of 2005 she has mentioned the name of Sarifuddin Momin as her husband. Further at para-15 it has been stated that the marriage of Ruksana Bibi was solemnized with Sarfuddin Momin @ Sarijuddin Momin, S/o Najumuddin Momin, R/o Village-Rampur, P.O.-Torai, P.S.-Pakur Nagar, District-Pakur. Further in para-16 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that so far as Taimuddin Momin is concerned he has been shown as husband of Rasina Bibi in the voter list of 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2014 and 2023. Further para-18 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that Sarijuddin Momin (official name) and Sarfuddin Momin (Popular name) are one and the same person whereas Taimuddin Momin is the younger brother of Sarijuddin Momin @ Sarifuddin Momin. Further in para-21 of the counter- affidavit it is stated that Sarijuddin Momin and Sarifuddin Momin is same person whereas Taimuddin Momin is a different person i.e. younger brother of Sarijuddin Momin @ Sarfuddin Momin. It has been further argued that only because the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court the same cannot be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. It has been further argued that in catena of decisions it has been clearly held that order of trial court even in case of acquittal cannot be a ground for quashment of dismissal order and for reinstatement. It has further been argued that from several documents brought on record and the enquiry report as well as the counter-affidavit, that Sarifuddin Momin as well as Sarijuddin Momin are the same persons who has tried to misguide the State by way of imposter as well as making several interpolation in the documents. It has been further argued that the impugned orders are fully justified and requires no interference by this Court. 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. -5- The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the order of the trial court. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that what illegalities has been committed by the respondents i.e., disciplinary authority while passing the impugned orders. It has been argued emphatically that in view of the trial court’s order the impugned order is not justified. It is a clear cut case in which the imposter has been taken into cognizance and thereafter enquiry was made and in the enquiry it is found that the petitioner has tried to mislead the respondents by taking a plea that he is not Sarijuddin Momin rather he is Sarifuddin Momin whereas the enquiry report says that Sarijuddin Momin and Sarifuddin Momin are the same person. No interference is warranted in the writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Rohit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)