Allowed

Sanjay Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2017WPC/4512/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a police officer, challenged the imposition of a stoppage of increment penalty. The court held that the act found proved in the inquiry report was not included in the framed charges. Consequently, the penalty and appellate order were quashed due to violation of principles of natural justice, and the petitioner was awarded full salary and allowances for the suspension period.

What did the court decide?

Impugned disciplinary order and appellate order are set aside; petitioner is entitled for full salary and allowances for the period during which he remained under suspension.

Sanjay Prasad Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 4512 of 2016

¶3

Sanjay Prasad, son of Sri Janardan Ram, resident of village & PO-Lohandia Bazaar, PS-Lalmatia, Dist.-Godda, Jharkhand, presently posted as Sub-Inspector, J.J.S.T.F., Ranchi, PODhurwa, PS-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Jharkhand

¶6

Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶7

Inspector General of Police,(Headquarters), Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶8

Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Region, Ranchi, PO & PS-Doranda, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶9

Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, PO-GPO, PS-Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶10

Superintendent of Police(Administration), Jharkhand Jaguar, STF, Ranchi, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶11

….... Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶14

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, JC to SC-V

¶15

08/14.09.2017 Aggrieved of order of stoppage of increment for six months passed by the disciplinary authority on 01.11.2015 and the appellate order dated 23.05.2016, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶16

Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Sub-inspector of police and he was posted at Ranchi during the period 2009 to 2014. More specifically, in May, 2013 he was posted in Bundu police station on the post of Assistant Sub-inspector. On account of illness of the officer-in-charge of Bundu police station from 07.02.2014 to 17.02.2014, the petitioner was in-charge of the police station. A First Information Report being Bundu P.S. Case No. 20 of 2014 was registered on 15.02.2014 for the offences punishable under Section 302/201/34 I.P.C against unknown persons. On 18.02.2014, he proceeded in connection to investigation in Bundu P.S. Case No.19 of 2014. On that day accused-Ajit Kumar and Amarjit Kumar were arrested by Surendra

¶17

Kandulna and Jai Shankar Singh, who were posted at Bundu police station. On 19.02.2014 these two accused persons were sent to judicial custody. Another accused namely, Abhimanyu @ Monu surrendered in the Court on 17.05.2014 and, the victim-Priti Kumari herself appeared before the Court on 14.06.2014. She was identified by her relatives in the Court. In the above facts, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 17.06.2014, on the allegation of arresting innocent persons. A departmental proceeding was initiated by issuing a charge-memo dated 25.07.2014 to the petitioner. Suspension order dated 17.06.2014 was revoked on 14.04.2015 and in the meantime, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 30.11.2014 holding the petitioner guilty for assisting in arrest of innocent persons.

¶18

Contending that the findings recorded by the enquiring officer in its report dated 30.11.2014 do not indicate that the charge of committing serious irregularities and errors in investigation of Bundu P.S. Case No.20 of 2014 have been found proved, still by the impugned order dated 01.11.2015, the petitioner has been inflicted with a major penalty of stoppage of increment for six months. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of punishment has been issued in breach of principles of natural justice.

¶19

Opposing the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, the learned State counsel contends that after two innocent persons were arrested in connection to Bundu P.S. Case No.20 of 2014 on 18.02.2014, their confessional statements were also recorded by the investigating officer. Another contention raised by the learned State counsel is that the findings of fact recorded by the departmental authorities are not open to challenge in a writ proceeding.

¶20

Admitted facts appearing from the materials produced in the present proceeding would disclose that the petitioner was not the investigating officer in Bundu P.S. Case No.20 of 2014 rather, he was the investigating officer

¶21

in Bundu P.S. Case No.19 of 2014. On 18.02.2014, the officer-in-charge of Bundu police station has taken charge of the police station and it has come on record (enquiry report) that the petitioner proceeded for investigation in Bundu P.S. Case No.19 of 2014 on that day. The petitioner is not the person who has arrested two persons namely, Ajit Kumar and Amarjit Kumar in connection to Bundu P.S. Case No. 20 of 2014. The alleged victim appeared in the Court on 14.06.2014 and between 18.02.2014 to 14.06.2014 the petitioner was not involved in any manner whatsoever with investigation in Bundu P.S. Case No.20 of 2014. The specific charge framed against the petitioner was for dereliction of duty, negligence and serious irregularities and errors in investigation of Bundu P.S. Case No.20 of 2014. Assisting in arrest of innocent persons was not the charge framed against the petitioner. The penalty order dated 01.11.2015 records agreement of the disciplinary authority with the enquiry report dated 30.11.2014 and on that basis punishment of stoppage of increment for six months has been passed by the disciplinary authority.

¶22

Apparently, the petitioner has suffered serious prejudice. He has been punished for an alleged act for which he was not put to notice in the charge-memo dated 25.07.2014. The appellate authority also proceeded on a premise, as if the charge framed against the petitioner has been found proved. Obviously, the process of decision making was faulty, for a fact which, in fact is not a fact, the petitioner has been inflicted with penalty of stoppage of increment for six months. Viewed thus, the penalty order as well as the appellate order require interference and consequently, these orders are set-aside. The petitioner is thus, held entitled for full salary and allowances for the period during which he remained under suspension. 7. The writ petition stands allowed, in the above terms.

¶23

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶24

sudhir

Sanjay Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Thakur Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Mujammil Alias Md Mojammil Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jafruddin Ansari Alias Bhermurwa Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Lakhpati Devi And Ors. Vs Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Vijay Kumar Vs The Central Coalfield Limited Through Its Chief Manager M P And Rectt And Ors.

Sunil Nayak Vs The State Of Jharkhand