Dismissed

Ram Chandra Pandey v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC13 Aug 2019WPC/1035/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an interim application allowing substitution of legal heirs after the original petitioner died. On merits, it dismissed writ petitions challenging a compulsory retirement order and rejected a prayer for compassionate appointment, holding no illegality in the enquiry and no surviving employer relationship.

What did the court decide?

Interim application allowed for substitution; both writ petitions dismissed and compassionate appointment prayer rejected.

Ram Chandra Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

Page 1 of 5 W.P.(S.) No. 1035 of 2011 W.P.(S.) No. 1273 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S.) No. 1035 of 2011

¶4

Ram Chandra Pandey son Of Late Phushan Pandey

¶5

… ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand,

¶8

Director General of Police, Ranchi.

¶9

Additional Director General of Police, Ranchi.

¶10

D.I.G. of Police (C.I.D.), Ranchi.

¶11

Superintendent of Police, Ranchi.

¶12

… … Respondents

¶13

With

¶14

W.P.(S.) No. 1273 of 2015

¶15

Jitendra Kumar Pandey, son of Late Ram Chandra Pandey … ... Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State of Jharkhand,

¶18

Director General of Police, Ranchi.

¶19

Additional Director General of Police, Ranchi.

¶20

The Deputy Inspector General of Police (C.I.D.), Ranchi.

¶21

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi.

¶22

… … Respondents

¶23

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶25

¶26

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, A.C. to S.C.-I.

¶27

¶28

Order No. 03 : Dated: 13^th August, 2019

¶29

Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.:

¶30

Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶31

Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, learned A.C. to S.C.-I for the respondents.

¶32

I.A. No. 7629 of 2019

¶33

The present interlocutory application has been filed for

¶34

substitution of the original writ petitioner from legal heirs or

¶35

successors.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the

¶37

Page 2 of 5 W.P.(S.) No. 1035 of 2011 W.P.(S.) No. 1273 of 2015

¶38

pendency of the writ petition, the original writ petitioner namely Ram Chandra Pandey died on 27.01.2013 leaving behind the legal heirs and successors. The name of legal heirs and successors of Late Ram Chandra Pandey has been disclosed in paragraph 5 of the interlocutory application.

¶39

For the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application, the interlocutory application is allowed.

¶40

The petitioner is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition in course of the day.

¶41

Accordingly, I.A. No. 7629 of 2019 stands disposed of.

¶42

W.P.(S.) No. 1035 of 2011

¶43

with

¶44

W.P.(S.) No. 1273 of 2015

¶45

It appears that several adjournments were allowed to the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1035 of 2011 for come out with substitution, which was not complied with. Vide order dated 08.10.2014, the writ petition was stood dismissed as abated. Thereafter, the elder son of the original writ petitioner namely Jitendra Kumar Pandey filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1273 of 2015 with an additional prayer of appointment of Jitendra Kumar Pandey on compassionate ground. Subsequently, C.M.P. No. 294 of 2018 has been filed for restoration of W.P.(S) No. 1035 of 2011. By order dated 12.04.2019, the said writ petition was restored and order of abatement was set aside taking into account that the cause

¶46

Page 3 of 5 W.P.(S.) No. 1035 of 2011 W.P.(S.) No. 1273 of 2015

¶47

of action would survive in respect of the legal heirs and accordingly, W.P.(S) No. 1035 of 2011 was restored to its original file.

¶48

Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was appointed on the post of constable in the year 1973. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Havildar on 01.07.1979. When the father of the petitioner was posted in the Head Quarter, Ranchi he was served with a charge sheet wherein the charge was leveled against the petitioner that he remains frequently absent from the duty and direction of the higher officer with regard to carrying postal communication was not complied with by him and for that the petitioner was suspended. The charge against the petitioner was framed. The petitioner replied the same. The departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in which the petitioner participated. The report of departmental inquiry submitted by the Inquiry officer. The petitioner was issued second show cause and he filed the reply to the second show cause and finally punishment order by the disciplinary authority has been passed on 23.02.2010 whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and appellate authority affirmed the punishment passed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 18.01.2011.

¶49

Aggrieved with these two orders, the petitioner preferred this

¶50

Page 4 of 5 W.P.(S.) No. 1035 of 2011 W.P.(S.) No. 1273 of 2015

¶51

writ petition. The only ground of attack by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the enquiry proceeding it has come out that merely on oral direction the petitioner was asked to carry out the postal communication and there is no written direction was issued so far as the postal communication is concerned. She further submits that the punishment is disproportionate to the charge. She further submits that if the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, the elder son of the petitioner required to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the prescribed rules.

¶52

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is a habitual absentee while on duty. He further submits that the petitioner has not carried out the direction of the superior which relates to the important work of the police force. He further submits that the disciplinary authority after appreciating entire facts has passed the punishment order and the appellate authority affirmed the same.

¶53

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner was a member of disciplined force. It is well known that for carrying the direction with regard to postal communication no order need to be passed so far as Rule 60 of the Police Manual is concerned, that is with regard to specific command with respect to transfer of any police officer to another place of posting. The enquiry proceeding has proceeded in

¶54

Page 5 of 5 W.P.(S.) No. 1035 of 2011 W.P.(S.) No. 1273 of 2015

¶55

accordance with law and there is no challenge with regard to the enquiry proceeding. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India remains slow when a question of punishment order is need to be interfered, that is in the domain of the disciplinary authority and accordingly, this Court finds that there is no illegality so far as the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is concerned.

¶56

Further, so far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to the compassionate appointment is concerned that is also not tenable in view of the fact that there is no employee-employer relationship between the father of the petitioner and the respondent w.e.f. 23.02.2010 and it is well settled that compassionate appointment is made for to meet the sudden jerk in the family after the death of bread earner of the family. In view of the above, the prayer for compassionate appointment is not tenable and the same is rejected.

¶57

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶58

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶59

The Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 13/08/2019 MM /AFR/NAFR

Ram Chandra Pandey v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra Pandey 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

Swapan Bhattacharya Vs Bank of India And Ors.

Chandradew Paswan Vs Ms B C C L and Ors.

Umesh Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lok Nath Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mana Birua Vs Union of India And Ors.