The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7764 of 2017 Police-233, Gomash Murmu … Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director General of Police – cum – Inspector General, Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Inspector General of Police (Training), Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings RC 4 to record the reasons recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 9. 10. The conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming of a government employee. It is better to weed out the dead woods as early as possible. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncement, no interference is warranted. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC
Arguments
:Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate :Mr. Chandan Tiwary, AC to GA-I Ms. Piyushita Meha Tudu, AC to AAG 13/19.02.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. PRAYER 2. Petitioner has assailed the order of dismissal dated 28.06.2016, passed by the Commandant, JAP-5 and the appellate order dated 10.11.2016 and 30.08.2017. Further prayer has been made to reinstate him in service on the post of Constable with effect from 28.06.2016 and to pay entire backwages with continuity in service. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a police constable and joined the service on 01.06.2006.In the year 2016, charges were framed against him and departmental proceeding was initiated on the presumption of bigamy. In the departmental proceeding, the charges were proved and admitted by the petitioner and it was found by the enquiry officer that the petitioner was living with the second wife without registration of their marriage. The disciplinary authority, after following the procedures, agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, inflicted punishment of dismissal on the charges of bigamy. Petitioner preferred appeal against the order of disciplinary authority and also revision before the revisional authority and both the authorities did RC 2 not interfere into orders of the disciplinary authority and the same stood affirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 4. Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the second marriage of the petitioner has not bee proved as the same was never solemnized either before the Court of law or following the rituals of tribal. But the fact remains that she has been in live-in relationship with the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that this contention of the petitioner was never considered by the higher authorities and as such the matter may be remitted back after quashing the order of dismissal. Learned counsel further submits that the order of dismissal is highly disproportionate to the charges. If petitioner’s dismissal is affirmed, the entire family will be on road and even the first wife will not be benefitted. Learned counsel submits that for the ends of justice, the order of dismissal be reduced to any other punishment other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. Mr. Chandan Tiwary, AC to learned GA-I appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and further submits that bigamy has been treated as misconduct in Police Manual as well as in the service rule. Rule 707 of the Police Manual is very clear that no police personnel shall solemnize second marriage without seeking permission. The same has also been held to be a criminal offence in Service Rule 23. 5. 6. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 7. Having heard rival submission of the parties across the bar, I find that nothing has been argued by the learned counsel as to whether any folly was committed in the departmental proceeding. Nothing has been brought on record to show that cardinal principles of natural justice has been violated and petitioner has been deprived from opportunity of hearing. The bigamy has been proved during the course of proceeding. RC 3 Merley because the second wife was in live-in relationship and there was no registered marriage, petitioner cannot get the benefits of the same treating the same not to be a bigamy. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Territory of Chandigarh reported in (2008) 1 SCC 797 has held that the decision of the D.G. of Police, the highest functionary in the hierarchy of police department, to consider suitability of the police for induction in the police force, could not be called into question. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 175, has held that “… … … the Court can only interfere in the order passed by the disciplinary authority where findings of the disciplinary authority are found to be unjust.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Para-24 to 28 has held as under: “24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: to (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.