Quashed

Hari Nath Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC22 Feb 2021WPC/1333/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the petitioner's major punishment order and appellate order passed by an unauthorised authority lacking jurisdiction under Jharkhand Police Manual rules, issuing directions for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned punishment order and appellate order were quashed and set aside; direction to initiate fresh proceedings from the stage of issuing a second show cause notice within 4 months.

Hari Nath Singh Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No.1333 of 2015

With

I.A. No.5183 of 2017

Hari Nath Singh

..… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand

¶10

Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶11

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed

¶12

Police, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S: Doranda, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶13

Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police, IRB-2, Chaibasa, Camp Musabani, P.O: Chaibasa, P.S: Chaibasa, Dist: East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶14

Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, IRB-2, Chaibasa, Camp Musabani, P.O: Chaibasa, P.S: Chaibasa,

¶15

Dist: East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ….. Respondents

¶16

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶18

	-------
For the Petitioner	: Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents	: Ms. Laxmi Murmu, SC-V
	-------

¶19

12/ 22/02/2021 Heard Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the

¶20

petitioner and Ms. Laxmi Murmu, SC-V for the Respondents State through V.C.

¶21

I.A. No.5183 of 2017:

¶22

The instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.5183 of 2017 has been preferred by the petitioner praying for an amendment in the prayer portion of the writ application, inasmuch as, the appellate order which was passed during pendency of this case was not challenged. As such, the petitioner prays for amendment in the prayer portion of the writ application so that necessary correction can be made in the prayer of this writ application.

¶23

Ms. Laxmi Murmu, learned counsel for the respondent State does not have any serious objection.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the statements

¶25

¶26

made in the interlocutory application; the I.A. No.5183 of 2017 is allowed.

¶27

This I.A. No.5183 of 2017 shall be treated as part and parcel of the original writ application for future reference.

¶28

With consent of the parties the main writ application is being taken up today for hearing.

¶29

W.P.(S) No.1333 of 2015:

¶30

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.201/Go dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure-10) , passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment of demotion to the post of Constable from Hawaldar and also he has to remain in basic pay for 03 years without cumulative effect.

¶31

The petitioner has further challenged the appellate order passed under Memo No.228/ Sha.sa dated 04.02.2016, whereby the appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

¶32

Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions:

¶33

A) Section 42 of the Police Act has not been followed to the extent that as per Section 42, any action by the respondent after 3 months is barred and any proceeding initiated after the period of 3 months shall be deemed to be non-est in the eye of law.

¶34

B) One Mr. Prithvi Nath Ram, who was Deputy Superintendent of Police and who made the investigation of this case and submitted the supervision note, however, for the reasons best known to the respondent, he himself has passed the order of punishment, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. C) Rule 825 D is not followed, inasmuch as, only

¶35

¶36

the appointing authority is empowered to impose punishment.

¶37

D) No second show cause notice was issued in spite of the fact that punishment imposed is a major punishment.

¶38

Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the charge sheet wherein it has been categorically mentioned that ‘Prithvi Nath Ram’ along with another person submitted the enquiry report after supervision and thereafter, from perusal of the impugned order at page 71 it clearly transpires that the order of punishment has been passed by the same person. As such, on this score alone, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

¶39

Ms. Laxmi Murmu, learned counsel for the respondent State contended that Section 42 of the Police Act has been repealed. She further submits that there is a serious allegation against this petitioner in which the supervision note was also filed. However, she could not dispute the fact that the person, namely, Prithvi Nath Ram, who submitted the supervision report, himself has passed the impugned order of punishment. She also could not controvert the fact that Prithvi Nath Ram cannot be the Appointing Authority because he was ‘Assistant Commandant’ and only “Commandant” could have passed the punishment order.

¶40

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents and statements made in the respective affidavits it appears that one Prithvi Nath Ram, who was the Senior DSP made the investigation and submitted the supervision note and from the impugned order it clearly transpires that he is the person who passed the impugned order, which is not

¶41

¶42

sustainable in the eye of law.

¶43

Further, as per Rule 828 of Jharkhand Police Manual, it is only the Superintendent who can pass the order of major punishment excluding dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement and admittedly; the said Prithvi Nath Ram assumed the charge of disciplinary authority and passed the order of punishment which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 15.10.2014 as contained in Memo No.201/Go ( Annexure-10) of the writ application, whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment and also the appellate order as contained in Memo No.228/ Sha. Sa dated 04.02.2016 ( Annexure-1 of I.A. No.5183 of 2017), passed by the appellate authority is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶45

The respondents shall be at liberty to initiate proceeding again from the stage of issuing second show cause notice to the petitioner and after receiving the reply, if any, pass a fresh order.

¶46

The petitioner shall also be at liberty to take all grounds including the ground of Section 42 of the Police Act in his reply to the show cause notice.

¶47

It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.

¶48

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

¶49

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶50

Pramanik/

Hari Nath Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Nath Singh 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

Vakil Prasad Singh Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Madan Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Budhan Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Irshad Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Pawan Das Cisf NO-082303462 Vs Union of India And Ors.

Basant Prasad Vs Human Resources Department