The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.517 of 2022 ---- Bhuvaneshwar Bedia alias Bhuneshwar Bedia son of late Juthan Bedia, resident of Village Jagudih, PO Ordana, PS Petarwar, Dist. Bokaro. … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Office at Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Praganas Range, Dumka. 4. The superintendent of Police, Deoghar. … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ----
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellant: For the Respondents: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC IV ---- Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate 6/ 11.07.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per Ananda Sen, J.)
Decision
O R D E R 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent at the instance of the writ petitioner in W.P.(S) No.3782 of 2018 is directed against the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.3782 of 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge, after holding that the entire proceeding against the petitioner stands vitiated and there are several laches, had set aside the dismissal order passed by the Appellate Authority on 27.03.2018, but after doing so, remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority, i.e., Director General of Police to pass an appropriate order on the quantum of punishment other than dismissal from service. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner- appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has held that there is no evidence against the petitioner at all to prove the charge and the Appellate Authority also had not exercised the power in true perspective and the entire proceeding is vitiated, thus, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order of dismissal. After doing so, the learned Single Judge could not have directed the Appellate Authority to pass an appropriate order on the quantum of punishment. It is his case that admittedly there is no evidence to prove the -: 2 :- charge against the petitioner and due to lack of any evidence, as has been held by the learned Single Judge, therefore, the Appellate Authority could not have been directed to pass an appropriate order on the quantum of punishment. It is his case that in the criminal trial, arising out of self-same charge, the appellant was acquitted as none came to lead evidence on behalf of the prosecution. As per him, this Letters Patent Appeal needs to be allowed in view of the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition itself. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the charges against the petitioner were grave, but admitted that in the criminal trial he was acquitted as there was no evidence led by the prosecution. On query, he admits that they had not filed any appeal challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge, which is in favour of the writ petitioner. 4. From the records, we find that the petitioner was in police department. There is an allegation against the petitioner that he misbehaved with two ladies and also physically assaulted them. Because of the aforesaid act of the petitioner, a First Information Report was registered, which was numbered as Deoghar Town Police Station Case No.157 of 2016 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 354 and 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, in the said criminal case, no witnesses turned up, hence, the appellant / delinquent was acquitted. A Departmental proceeding was also initiated on the self-same charge. In the Departmental Proceeding, the victim, who were allegedly assaulted by this appellant, were not produced as witnesses, rather two police officials were produced, who exhibited the First Information Report and the other documents. An enquiry was held pursuant to the aforesaid charge and a report was submitted, wherein the appellant was found guilty of indiscipline and dereliction of duty. The Enquiry Report was not furnished to the petitioner, but the petitioner was awarded the punishment of demotion to the rank of constable for 3 (three) years. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police, but the Director General of Police, while considering his appeal, enhanced the punishment and dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, petitioner approached the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3782 of 2018. -: 3 :- 5. After going through the impugned order, we find that learned Single Judge, after going through the documents and records, arrived at a finding that though the Superintendent of Police was empowered to initiate a Departmental Proceeding and serve the memorandum of charge, but whether the same was approved by the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police or not is not clear. Further, the learned Single Judge at paragraph 11 of the impugned order has given a finding that there was not a single eye witness or independent witness, who came forward to depose against the petitioner, even the complainant and her associates, whose name figures in the First Information Report were never called for recording their evidence nor they were examined in the Departmental Proceeding. The First Information Report was only the ground for initiating Departmental proceeding. Learned Single Judge further held at paragraph 12 as under: - “12. Further, it can be comfortably said that there is no evidence against the petitioner to prove the case, even the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses during the departmental proceedings. It is also an admitted fact that no second show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. DIG of Police with a copy of enquiry report to the petitioner to defend himself against the punishment proposed to be awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned counsel for the respondents has tried to impress the Court that a copy of enquiry report was served, whereas, a copy of enquiry report was earlier given to the petitioner along with a copy of recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar to D.I.G. for awarding the punishment, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority i.e. DIG to issue notice with a copy of enquiry report, which was not done in the instant case, which is mandatory provision and as per the law, issuance of show cause notice with the enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority is sine qua non. …” 6. Further, in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has arrived at a finding that the DIG being the Appointing-cum- Disciplinary Authority, did not ask for a show cause notice for enhancing the punishment, rather the same was asked by the Superintendent of Police, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. In paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has held that the Appellate Authority ought to have applied his independent mind, but the Appellate Authority failed to -: 4 :- exercise his authority, which vitiates the entire proceeding. In the said paragraph 15, it has also been held that there are several procedural latches. Ultimately, the dismissal order was quashed and set aside by the impugned judgment. Thereafter, we find that the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority on the quantum of punishment only on the ground that charges are serious in nature and looking into the allegations made by a lady, petitioner cannot be left scot free. The learned Single Judge directed the Appellate Authority to pass another order of punishment instead of dismissal. In fact, the petitioner is aggrieved by this part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. The findings of learned Single Judge on the point of no evidence or regarding procedural latches have not been challenged by the respondents by filing any appeal, thus, they have admitted the aforesaid findings. 8. While dealing with this case, on 16.05.2023, to verify about the status in respect of issuance of notice to the witnesses in the criminal case being G.R. No.387 of 2016 (T.R. No.169 of 2020), we had called for the records of the said case from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar. The records have been placed before us. We have gone through the same. Notices, summons and even bailable warrants were issued to the witnesses, i.e. the ladies who were misbehaved with, but inspite of that, none appeared to depose before the Court, thus, the Court acquitted the appellant. Admittedly, they were also not before the enquiry officer. 9. We are of the firm opinion that in view of the findings, which the learned Single Judge has arrived at in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15, the matter could not have been remitted to the Appellate Authority on the quantum of punishment. Once the learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that there is no evidence in support of the allegation of charges and there are severe irregularities in the procedure and the Appellate Authority has also not applied his mind and failed to exercise his authority in correct perspective and thereafter has also set aside the order of dismissal, there was no occasion to remand the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide on the quantum of punishment. 10. Further, we find that learned Single Judge, only taking into consideration the allegation made by a lady and the alleged serious nature of the charge, has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant needs to be punished. In a Departmental Proceeding, a punishment is imposed after -: 5 :- conclusion of the proceeding only if the guilt of the delinquent employee is found to be proved by evidence on the basis of preponderance of probability. The gravity of charge alone or the allegations made against the delinquent alone, by itself, cannot be a ground to punish the delinquent in absence of any evidence. Even grave charges needs to be proved by leading evidence. 10. In this case, learned Single Judge has already held that there is no evidence to prove the charge. We also find the same to be correct. That being so, only on the basis of allegation and the gravity of the allegation, the direction to punish the appellant by remanding the matter does not hold good. Thus, we set aside the direction and observations given in paragraph 16 of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3782 of 2018. The initial punishment order imposed upon the petitioner, which has merged with the dismissal order passed against the petitioner-appellant, since has already been set aside by the learned Single Judge, no fresh order need be passed as the punishment order already stands set aside. 11. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) Kumar/Cp-02 (Ananda Sen, J.)