Allowed

Sulendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2019WPC/6761/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a dismissal order and appellate order in a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was not served a chargesheet and was denied a hearing, violating the principle of audi alteram partem. Additionally, the court found the dismissal disproportionate to the charge. The matter has been remanded to reinstate the petitioner in service.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned punishment order dated 12.10.2003 and appellate order dated 13.03.2004 quashed; matter remanded to respondent no. 4 to pass a fresh order within eight weeks.

Sulendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6761 of 2007

¶2

¶3

Sulendra Kumar, S/o Bhaiji Prasad Yadav, resident of village- Dudhai, P.O.- Sahuria, P.S.- Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa (Bihar)

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koela Range, Bokaro.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro. ...... Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Adv. : Mrs. Micky Kumari, Adv. : Ms. Kumari Priyambada, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. S. Bhowmick, A.C to S.C III (Mines)

¶13

Order No. 06: Dated 1^st August, 2019

¶14

Heard Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Bhowmick, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State.

¶15

The petitioner is aggrieved with the punishment order dated 12.10.2003, whereby, the petitioner has been dismissed from service and also appellate order dated 13.03.2004 as preferred by this writ petitioner for quashing both the orders.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of constable on 03.11.1992. A chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was on casual leave of 10 days and he proceeded in the evening of 09.11.2001. He was supposed to report in the morning of 22.11.2001 on duty; but without any information or application the petitioner went on absenting. On this charge, the petitioner was chargesheeted, a departmental proceeding was initiated. Subsequently, the enquiry report was submitted on 17.01.2003, wherein, the enquiry officer gave the report that the charge against the petitioner has been proved and taking into account the quantum of punishment in the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal, which was taken into appeal. In appeal also that has been affirmed, then the petitioner moved before the authority for memorial which was disposed of.

¶17

Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner left on 09.11.2001 and he reported on 07.10.2002, whereas the memo of charge, which is contained in Annexure- 1 dated

¶18

¶19

08.09.2002, and enquiry report has been submitted on 17.01.2003, as the petitioner was asked to submit his reply on 21.03.2003 and he replied on 09.07.2003. Referring to these dates, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not served chargesheet and only after the enquiry report, he has been asked to reply by letter dated 21.03.2003. He further submits that an enquiry was proceeded behind his back and he has not been provided any opportunity. He further submits that looking into the charge, the dismissal order is harsh and disproportionate to the charge and as such, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that on perusal of the enquiry report itself it transpires that the petitioner was asked to show cause but in spite of that he did not reply. He has not submitted any document with respect to his absence and the enquiry report is based on those facts. There is no illegality in the enquiry report and consequently the appellate order is correct and need not be interfered into by this Court.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has not been served the chargesheet and he was not intimated about the departmental proceeding as to which date proceeding is going to take place and as such, he was deprived of defending himself in the enquiry proceeding and in view of the well settled principle of audi alteram partem, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Moreover, the punishment order is touch the conscious of this Court, which is disproportionate to the charge. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the impugned order dated 12.10.2003 and 13.03.2004 are quashed.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶23

The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.4, who is in turn, will pass a fresh order within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶24

Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶26

Raja /

Sulendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulendra Kumar 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

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Smt. Abha Jha Vs Vananchal Gramin Bank And Ors.

Baleshwar Bedia Vs Central Coal Fields Limited And

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Raj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ahmad Hussain Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.