The high court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of dismissal orders in a police departmental proceeding. The court held that entertaining the petition would be a futile exercise as the petitioner had repeated the same misconduct after being reinstated by a court order.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6417 of 2012
Ram Vilash Tiwary Son of late Dukhi Tiwary, Resident of village- Bareo, P.O. Nemdurganj, P.S. Akbarpur, District- Nawada (Bihar)
..... Petitioner
Versus
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Sumit Prakash, A.C to S.C.-IV
Order No. 06: Dated 7th August, 2019
Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 01.03.2000 passed by Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur and also the appellate order dated 14.09.2012 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan Range-Chaibasa, West Singhbhum whereby, the service of the petitioner has been dismissed.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the District Police. A Departmental Proceeding No. 57/89 was initiated on 20.05.1988 against the petitioner for gross indiscipline, on the basis of an information given by a Police Officer that the petitioner is absent from his duty w.e.f. 20.5.1988 without any information.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2002 of 1994 (R) which was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Inspector General of Police to decide the case of the petitioner. The Deputy Inspector General of Police allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur to take a fresh decision after getting all the aspects enquired into in the departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the petitioner was again taken into service. Again a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner got himself admitted in Police
2
Hospital on 16.12.1995 and on 08.01.1996, though he was discharged from Police Hospital in a fit condition but again since 09.01.1996 he remained absent from his duty without any information and permission. An explanation was asked from the petitioner of the charges framed against him, in response to which his explanation was received with photocopy of three medical certificates. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from his duty since 09.01.1996 without any information and permission. The enquiry report was submitted by letter dated 28.07.1999 which is brought by way of Annexure-F in the supplementary counter affidavit. The petitioner was asked to reply within 15 days but the petitioner not having replied to the same, the order dated 01.03.2000 has been passed, whereby he has been dismissed from service.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the enquiry has been conducted ex-parte. He further submits that neither a copy of enquiry report has been provided to the petitioner, nor the second show cause notice was served upon him, which is in violation of Rule 828(b) of the Police Manual.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that petitioner was informed about the departmental proceeding but in spite of that he did not appear in the departmental proceeding. He draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-F to the supplementary counter affidavit and submits that he was asked to give explanation within 15 days, pursuant to enquiry report, but he had not replied. He further submits that in view of Annexure-F, Rule 828 (b) has been complied with. The authority concerned has also taken into account the conduct of this petitioner, who remained absent on earlier occasion also for which he was dismissed but in view an order of this Court, he was again reinstated and he repeated the same misconduct and thus, he has not improved himself.
Learned counsel further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders dated 01.03.2000 and 14.09.2012. Now this Court has to examine as to whether even accepting the argument of the petitioner and remanding back the matter to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage of departmental proceeding whether any change in the situation
3
will be there or not. In appropriate cases the principles of natural justice is diluted by the Court, but seeing the conduct of this petitioner, who has absented himself from the work at earlier stage also and by an order of this Court, the appellate authority remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority and pursuant to that, the disciplinary authority reinstated the petitioner in service and the petitioner again repeated the same misconduct for which, the departmental proceeding was again initiated it would not be proper for this Court to entertain this writ petition.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and looking two documents particularly Annexure-F, which has been annexed with the Supplementary counter affidavit it appears that the information to that effect has been issued to the petitioner. Thus, if the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage of departmental proceeding, it will be a futile exercise.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Raja /
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be entertained given the petitioner's repeated misconduct and renewal of the same misconduct after reinstatement.
Whether quashing the disciplinary order and remanding the matter would be a futile exercise.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Vilash Tiwary
Director General-cum-I.G. of Police, Jharkhand
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
