The court quashed the dismissal order against a constable, holding it unsustainable as the main complainant denied allegations and medical examination was delayed, relying on Indu Bhushan Dwivedi.
Impugned order dated 16.12.2013 quashed; matter remitted to respondents to pass order afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 3 W.P.(S) No. 1378 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S.) No. 1378 of 2014
Dinesh Pandey, Son of Nirmal Kumar Pandey, Resident of Village Arak, Post Office-Arak, Police Station-Krishna Braham, DistrictBuxar (Bihar). … ... Petitioner
.… … Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-------For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, A.C. to S.C. VI.
Order No. 04: Dated: 10th July, 2019
Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.:
Page 2 of 3 W.P.(S) No. 1378 of 2014
Authority has passed the order of dismissal. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Competent Authority which has been rejected and subsequently revision was filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. Mr. A. K. Sinha, the learned Sr. Counsel submits that on the allegation made by Lal Bahadur Singh, charge against this petitioner has been framed but Lal Bahadur Singh on affidavit stated that on coercion he has made allegation against the petitioner. He denied that he alleged against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has been examined medically after four days of the occurrence and as such report has not been brought on the record by the concerned department. He further submits that while issuing the impugned order, the Disciplinary Authority has entered into the past allegation of the petitioner for which he has already been punished and that was not charge and despite of that the Disciplinary authority has passed the order of the dismissal. To substantiate his argument Mr. Sinha relied on decision in the case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2010)11 S.C.C 278 . He has also referred the paragraph 28 of the said judgment which reads as follows :-
“28.An analysis of the two judgments shows that while recommending or imposing punishment on an employee, who is found guilty of misconduct, the disciplinary /competent authority cannot consider his past adverse record or punishment without giving him an opportunity to explain his position and considering his explanation. However, such an opportunity is not required to be given if the final punishment is lesser than the proposed punishment”.
Page 3 of 3 W.P.(S) No. 1378 of 2014
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
The Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 10/07/2019 MM /AFR/NAFR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned disciplinary order of dismissal can be upheld when the complainant denying the allegation and the petitioner was not medically examined within 24 hours.
Whether considering past adverse records without providing an opportunity to explain violates the principles in Indu Bhushan Dwivedi.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and AnotherRelied on¶21
(2010) 11 S.C.C. 278 · Who else cites this
Dinesh Pandey
State of Jharkhand
The Director, General of Police, Government of Jharkhand
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Latehar
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
