The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, P.O v. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 420 of 2023 With I.A. No. 10447 of 2023 Padma Kumari, Constable 28, Aged about 33 years D/o of Bipad Bhanjan Mahto, resident of village Chiragaldih, P.O. and P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Appellant 1. State of Jharkhand 2. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, P.O. Versus and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 4. The Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, at Raja Rani Kothi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi … … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant For the Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to S.C. IV --- 18th January 2024 Per Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. I.A. No. 10447 of 2023 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of nine days in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. After going through the averments made in the interlocutory application and being satisfied with the cause shown for delay in fling the appeal, I.A. No. 10447 of 2023 is allowed and delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. L.P.A. No. 420 of 2023 4. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.06.2023
Decision
passed in W.P. (S) No.3217 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-10 Hotwar, Ranchi in Departmental Proceeding No. 24 of 2015 whereby the writ petitioner has been dismissed from service. Further prayer has been made by the writ petitioner for quashing of appellate order dated 2 L.P.A. No. 420 of 2023 06.04.2016 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Force, Ranchi (respondent no. 3). The writ petitioner had also prayed for quashing the letter dated 13.04.2018 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration) Office of Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, whereby the petitioner has been informed regarding rejection of her application dated 12.01.2018 filed for reinstatement in service in the light of acquittal order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 4709 of 2015. 5. The findings of the writ Court are as under:- “ 10. Thus, it is a well settled principle of law that acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority since the standards of proof required for holding a person guilty in a criminal trial and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding are entirely different. In the criminal trial, strict burden is required to establish the guilt of an accused whereas of proof preponderance of probabilities is sufficient in a disciplinary proceeding. 11. On bare perusal of the record, it appears that altogether eight witnesses were examined during inquiry and the petitioner herself admitted that she had withdrawn Rs.49,000/- from the account of Vibha Devi by putting forged signature on the cheque stolen by her from the complainant’s purse. The petitioner again tried to withdraw Rs.49,000/- from the account of Vibha Devi by another stolen cheque, however she failed in her attempt. The petitioner also admitted that the said amount was subsequently deposited in the bank account of Vibha Devi by way of a cheque dated 11.08.2015. In the inquiry report, the conducting officer recorded the explanation given by the petitioner wherein she had stated that a demand of Rs.1,50,000/- was made to her by her husband for purchasing land in the village and due to unavailability of fund, she asked the complainant-Vibha Devi and other colleagues to help her by lending the aforesaid money, however when the complainant refused to help, she stole the cheques from her purse and withdrew Rs.49,000/- from her account by putting forged signature. The conducting officer further observed that earlier also in the year 2009, the petitioner had withdrawn money from the account of one of her colleagues namely Ashishan Kandulna by committing theft of her ATM card. The disciplinary authority after considering the inquiry report observed that the conduct of the petitioner was of tarnishing the image of Police Department in the public. It was further observed that for the earlier conduct, the petitioner was awarded punishment of seizure of one annual increment vide departmental proceeding no. 05 of 2010, however she again committed similar offence. Hence, she was considered incompetent for the police force. 12. On perusal of the judgment passed in criminal case being G.R Case No. 4709 of 2015, it appears that in the said case, only one witness i.e, the informant/complainant was examined whereas the investigating officer as well as other witnesses were not examined. It was observed by the criminal court that due to nonexamination of the investigating officer, the withdrawal of money allegedly made by the accused could not be proved. The criminal court also noted that the money was returned to the complainant after compromise arrived between her and the accused. The criminal court having found that the offences alleged against the accused were compoundable with permission of the court and since the accused and the complainant had compromised the 3 L.P.A. No. 420 of 2023 matter, permission was granted to compound the offences. Thereafter, on the basis of the said compromise, the accused/petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against her. 13. From the aforesaid observations made by the criminal court, it appears that the acquittal of the petitioner is not honourable and therefore on mere ground that she has been acquitted of the charges in criminal case, she cannot claim reinstatement in service. 14. Now, the question arises as to whether any interference with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner is required to be made by this Court under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari reported in (2006) 10 SCC 388, has held that the quantum of punishment should not be interfered in a routine manner. The court is not supposed to interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or is shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards. 16. In the case of Govt. of A.P. & Others Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan reported in (2006) 2 SCC 373, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “14. As already said, in the present case there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice or the inquiry being held inconsistent with the mode of procedure prescribed by the rules or regulations. 15. This takes us to the last submission of the counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the offence, said to have been committed, being minor in nature and no loss being caused to the owner of the property, inasmuch as the same had been recovered on the spot, lenient punishment may be awarded in place of dismissal from service. We are unable to countenance this submission. The gravity of the offence must necessarily be measured with the nature of the offence. The respondent was a member of a disciplined force holding the rank of Head Constable. The duty assigned to him was a “bandobast” duty during the visit of the then President Bill Clinton, who ran a security risk of the highest grade. His misconduct could have led to serious security lapse resulting in fatal consequences. But, because of timely detection by the electrician, PW 4, the lens was recovered and immediately restored. We entirely agree with the inquiry officer that the charges are serious in nature, being committed by a member of a disciplined force, who deserved stringent punishment. To instil the confidence of the public in the establishment, the only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal from service, which has been correctly awarded. 17. In the present case also, the petitioner had withdrawn money from the account of the complainant by putting forged signature on the cheque stolen by her which is a serious charge particularly considering that she was a member of a disciplined force. Previously also, the petitioner had committed theft of ATM card of her colleague-Ashishan Kandulna for which she was imposed punishment of seizure of one annual increment. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to show any procedural irregularity in the departmental proceeding no. 24 of 2015. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority as well as the orders of the appellate and the revisional authorities. 4 L.P.A. No. 420 of 2023 19. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on the same set of facts a criminal case as well as departmental proceeding was instituted. The appellant was dismissed pursuant to the departmental inquiry. The appeal and other remedies have also been exhausted by the appellant and the order of dismissal has been upheld, but in the criminal case, there is an order of acquittal. Since the departmental proceeding as well as criminal case was arising from same set of facts, the appellant ought to have been reinstated in service and the order of punishment of dismissal was fit to be set aside. He submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the writ Court and therefore the order of the writ Court be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer has submitted that the appellant has not been honorably acquitted, rather the appellant has been acquitted by way of compromise. He has submitted that in such circumstances, the acquittal of the appellant through compromise has no bearing in the departmental proceeding. He has also submitted that the departmental proceeding was duly conducted in compliance with the provisions of law and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and no illegality or infirmity has been pointed out by the appellant with regard to the conduct of the departmental proceeding. The learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant had a similar incident earlier also and therefore the argument of the appellant with regard to quantum of punishment has also been rejected by the writ Court. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was subjected to departmental proceeding on account of the allegation that she had withdrawn the money from the account of the complainant by putting forged signature on the cheques stolen by her. In the departmental proceeding as many as eight witnesses were examined and the appellant was found guilty of the allegations levelled against her and consequently she was dismissed from service vide order dated 12.12.2015. Against such order, her appeal was also dismissed and it has also come on record that the 5 L.P.A. No. 420 of 2023 revision which was filed by the appellant was also dismissed. With regard to the conduct of the departmental proceeding, no illegality as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The sole contention of the appellant is that on account of acquittal in the criminal case, the appellant ought to have been reinstated in the service. 10. This Court has gone through the order passed in the criminal case and finds that it has been specifically recorded therein that there was a compromise between the complainant and the appellant and the appellant was acquitted for the alleged offence under sections 419/420 and 379 of IPC. It has also been recorded that the complainant had deposed before the learned Court that she had got back the money from the appellant which was stolen by the appellant through cheque. 11. This Court is of the considered view that nature of acquittal of the appellant is not on merits, rather the same is on account of compromise between the parties. Accordingly, the acquittal of the appellant has no bearing in the departmental proceedings in view of the fact that the appellant was held guilty in the departmental proceeding by appreciation of evidences produced during departmental proceeding. 12. This Court has gone through the order passed by the writ Court and finds that the writ Court has considered every aspect of the matter and has rejected the claim of reinstatement on the basis of the acquittal of appellant in the criminal case. The writ Court has also considered the plea regarding quantum of punishment and has also recorded that the appellant had previously also committed theft of ATM Card of her colleague Ashishan Kandulna for which she was imposed punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment. The previous conduct of the appellant is not in dispute. 13. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned order calling for any interference. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit