Ramesh Kumar Saw, aged about 44 years, Son of Sri Teklal Saw, Resident of v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Inspector General of Police
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5114 of 2021 Ramesh Kumar Saw, aged about 44 years, Son of Sri Teklal Saw, Resident of Village- Kailatand, P.O.- Kheshkari, P.S.- Suriya, Dist.- Giridih. Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. 3. The Director General of Police (Home Guard), having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. 4. The Director General of Police (Training), Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribag, Dist.- Hazaribag. 5. The Inspector General, Bokaro Range, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, Dist.- Bokaro. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Giridih, P.O. & P.S.- Giridih, Dist.- Giridih. 7. The Additional Director General of Police (Home Guard & Fire Services), Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Ranchi, Dist.- Ranchi. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV --- 16/24.10.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. For quashing of order dated 07.03.2022 contained in Memo No. Vi-01-08-2014-219/Vidhi passed by respondent no. 7 by which reinstatement in service of the petitioner has been denied and representation submitted by the petitioner has been dismissed. ii. For quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 2373 dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure-11) passed by the D.G.P. (Home Guard) and also order dated 07.12.2013 (Annexure-11) contained in Memo No. 3546 issued by the D.G.P. (Trainee), Hazaribag and Memo No. 379 dated 10.04.2017 (Annexure- 14 Series) passed by Inspector General of Police (Personnel) along with Memo No. 2149 dated 19.12.2017 (Annexure-14 Series) passed by D.G.P., Home Guard, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been terminated only on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and the petitioner deliberately did not inform the respondent 1 authorities did not inform the respondent authorities with regard to the same and had played fraud upon the respondent authorities as well as the respondent authority has never considered the representation of the petitioner stating therein that the entire selection process has been annulled by the respondent due to allegation of certain irregularities in the selection process and the appointed candidates pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2008 had been removed, further it was stated that the matter relating to removal of candidates is pending before Hon'ble High Court and petitioner case shall be considered after the said case. iii . Declaring that the order of termination of the petitioner is not only arbitrary but also exorbitant in view of the fact that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner is still pending and only on ground of pendency, the petitioner could not have been removed from the services." Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the selection process for appointment of Company Commander pursuant to advertisement no. 1 of 2008 and he was appointed on 09.11.2012. He submits that litigation was going on in connection with the selection process which ended finally in the year 2017. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was a probationer. On 03.04.2013, the petitioner surrendered before the Civil Court concerned in connection with one First Information Report registered on 18.07.1997 for offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of Indian Penal Code, section 27 of the Arms Act and sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. He submits that the First Information Report was lodged against "Rameshwar Saw, son of Teko Saw" and name of the petitioner as per his matriculation certificate is "Ramesh Kumar Saw, son of Tek Lal Saw". He submits that the petitioner was not aware about the pendency of the criminal case and it is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is not ‘Rameshwar Saw’ but is ‘Ramesh Kumar Saw’. 5. However, after surrender the petitioner faced enquiry under Juvenile Justice Act as at the relevant point of time in the year 1997, the petitioner was a juvenile. In the enquiry, none of the witnesses 2 appeared to support the case and the petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 10.03.2017. 6. The learned counsel submits that on account of arrest, the petitioner was suspended on 16.04.2013. 7. The learned counsel has further submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner was taken into consideration by the competent authority vide letter contained in memo no. 379 dated 10.04.2017 wherein it was recorded that the petitioner has been acquitted but in spite of his acquittal, he cannot be taken back in service as recommendation was made to remove the name of the 42 persons including the petitioner from the select list arising out of advertisement no. 1 of 2008. 8. The learned counsel submits that as the petitioner had no knowledge about the criminal case at the time of recruitment and immediately after he came to know about it, he surrendered and he has been ultimately acquitted, therefore, the respondents were not justified in dismissing the petitioner. He has also submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the impugned order of dismissal is fit to be set-aside. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the principles of natural justice were not followed. Arguments on behalf of the respondents 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has referred to the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner as contained in Memo No. 763 dated 18.06.2013 to submit that allegation was levelled against the petitioner that the petitioner, in connivance with the school authorities, had got his name changed and he had full knowledge about the pendency of the criminal case this fact was not disclosed. He submits that apart from the aforesaid allegation, there was also an allegation that the petitioner had applied for leave vide letter dated 08.04.2013 annexing a document dated 02.04.2013 by stating that the petitioner was not well although on 08.04.2013, the petitioner was in custody and the application of the petitioner was not even forwarded through the jail authorities. The petitioner suppressed the fact from the authorities that 3 he was in custody and tried to justify his absence by furnishing false document showing that he was unwell. It is not in dispute that he surrendered before the learned Court concerned on 03.04.2013. The learned counsel submits that the said allegation was also one of the reasons to dismiss the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner was a probationer and therefore, the petitioner otherwise also has no right to be taken back. Findings of this Court 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that one criminal case was instituted way back as on 18.07.1997 and the petitioner, by referring to his Class 10th certificate, has tried to submit before this Court that the criminal case was in the name of "Rameshwar Saw, son of Teko Saw" and the name of the petitioner is "Ramesh Kumar Saw, son of Tek Lal Saw". However, during the course of hearing it transpired that the address of the accused in the criminal case and the address of the present petitioner is one and the same which is not in dispute. 12. This Court further finds that the petitioner was appointed on probation basis only on 09.11.2012 and he was put under suspension on 16.04.2013 on account of the fact that he was taken into custody in the criminal case. He was suspended with effect from 03.04.2013 i.e. the date on which the petitioner had surrendered before the court in the criminal case. A show-cause notice contained in Memo No. 763 dated 18.06.2013 was issued to the petitioner with regard to suppression of the fact that a First Information Report was instituted against the petitioner way back in the year 1997. In the show-cause notice, further allegation was levelled that the petitioner had filed application for leave on medical ground on 08.04.2013 annexing a doctor’s prescription dated 02.04.2013, although on 08.04.2013 he was in custody as he had surrendered on 03.04.2013 and the said application for leave was not forwarded through the Jail Superintendent. Meaning thereby, the petitioner had suppressed the 4 fact that he was in custody and tried to justify his absence on medical grounds. 13. The petitioner had also filed a reply to the show-cause notice. The reply of the petitioner is annexed at Annexure-9 to the writ petition which is dated 23.10.2013 wherein he admitted that he was in custody since 03.04.2013 and has also stated that the department was aware that he was in custody since 03.04.2013. The petitioner, in his reply also disputed his identity as "Rameshwar Saw, son of Teko Saw" and insisted that he was "Ramesh Kumar Saw, son of Tek Lal Saw" as per his class 10th certificate said to have been issued in the year 1995. 14. This Court finds that the fact that the petitioner was in custody since 03.04.2013 stood admitted and the competent authority, while dismissing the petitioner vide memo dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure-16) has taken into consideration that in the criminal case ‘Rameshwar Saw, son of Teko Saw’ was declared to be absconder and the charge - sheet dated 30.04.2005 was submitted. It has also been taken into consideration by the competent authority that the petitioner had surrendered in the criminal case on 04.03.2013 and he had filed an application seeking leave on medical ground on 08.04.2013 with a medical prescription dated 02.04.2013 and the said leave application was not forwarded by the jail authority and thus, the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was in custody in connection with the criminal case. The authority took into consideration that the petitioner had produced false document while seeking leave on account of medical reasons and had also suppressed material facts and dismissed the petitioner vide impugned order dated 07.03.2022. 15. In view of the aforesaid finding of the authority in connection with custody of the petitioner since 04.03.2013 and the finding that the petitioner had given false application seeking leave on medical ground and had not disclosed that he was in custody and also considering the fact that the petitioner was still a probationer, no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned 5 order of dismissal and accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. 16. 17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 6