Partly allowed

Dwarika Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Jun 2022LPA/596/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a letters patent appeal challenging a departmental confirmation of punishment. The court modified the punishment from reversion to original pay scale to stoppage of two increments for one year, citing harshness given the appellant's 30 years of service.

What did the court decide?

Punishment of reversion to original pay scale modified to stoppage of two increments for one year.

Dwarika Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

LPA No. 596 of 2017

¶4

Dwarika Prasad Singh, son of Late Raghuraj Singh, resident of B/102, 'Om Nirmalaya' Apartment, PO & PS Buddha Colony, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, Patna, Bihar ….. ….. Petitioner/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand;

¶7

Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand;

¶8

Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand;

¶9

Director General -cum- Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Head Quarter, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand;

¶10

Regional Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand;

¶11

… … Respondents/ Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶14

¶15

For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate

¶16

Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate

¶17

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, AAG-IV

¶18

-------- O R D E R 7^th June 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

¶19

WP(S) No. 6254 of 2010 was preferred by the appellant challenging the order of punishment dated 1^st November 2010.

¶20

The writ Court partly allowed the prayer of the appellant by interfering with the second part of punishment that no independent post shall be given to the appellant.

¶21

The learned writ Court in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the order dated 30^th November 2016 has observed as under:

¶22

“ 9. From the discussions made herein above, in particular Rule 55A read with Rule 49 of the Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, the second part of punishment i.e. “no independent posting would be given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police” is hereby quashed and set aside and first part of punishment i.e. “the Deputy Superintendent of Police was put to the original pay-scale”, as the misconduct has been proved and it falls under Rule 49 (iii) of the Rules, hence, the same does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶23

10. So far as prayer in W.P. (S) No. 6254 of 2010 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police and further to recommend his name for the select list of the Indian

¶24

2 LPA No. 596 of 2017

¶25

Police Service and further direction upon the respondents to pay the benefits of the second A.C.P from the date his juniors have been considered and granted promotion, is concerned, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules of Promotion/Departmental Rule/Regulations etc.

¶26

The appellant is aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 30^th November 2016 passed in WP(S) No. 6254 of 2010 by which the punishment inflicted upon him in the departmental proceeding that he shall be reverted to original pay scale, has been affirmed.

¶27

The present Letters Patent Appeal is premised on the grounds that: (i) the punishment of reverting to original pay scale is not a punishment provided under Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 and (ii) the punishment is too harsh and onerous as compared to the charge proved against the appellant.

¶28

In the departmental proceeding charges of indiscipline and dereliction of duty were framed against the appellant and the said charges have been found proved against him. In fact, several charges were put together in a single charge memo, which according to Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the appellant, caused serious prejudice to the appellant and, therefore, the appellant could not effectively defend himself in the departmental proceeding.

¶29

Powers of judicial review of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are no doubt very limited, but then, interference with the order of punishment is not altogether a prohibited zone.

¶30

In “Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India” (1987) 4 SCC 611 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the writ Court would be justified to interfere with the order of punishment if the punishment imposed upon the employee is such that shocks the conscience of the Court or that a reasonable employer could not have ever taken such a decision.

¶31

On a reading of the charge memo, we intend to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that by putting several incidences of the alleged misconduct – altogether unconnected – in a single charge memo the delinquent employee was deprived of an effective opportunity to defend himself. Leaving this issue aside, we further find that by imposing a punishment of reverting the appellant to the original pay scale which would mean that the appellant would be reverted to pay scale at the time of his

¶32

3 LPA No. 596 of 2017

¶33

joining the service, particularly after 30 years, is too harsh punishment. 10. Therefore, we interfere with the punishment order dated 1^st November 2010 on this count, even though the writ Court would normally not exercise its powers to substitute the punishment but for the reason that the appellant after serving more than 30 years has already superannuated from the service, and now all that he gets is monetary benefits.

¶34

In the aforesaid facts situation, we are of the opinion that it would serve the interest of justice, if the order of punishment inflicted upon the appellant in the departmental proceeding that he shall be reverted to original pay scale is modified to stoppage of two increments for one year. 12. LPA No. 596 of 2017 is partly allowed.

¶35

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶36

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶37

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 7^th June 2022 SB/Nibha-NAFR

Dwarika Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarika Prasad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Rabbani Mian Vs Union of India through Ministry of Power

Ms Laxmi Business and Cement Company Ltd. through Its Authorised Signatory Sri Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through Its Chairman and Ors.

Ms Laxmi Ispat Udyog through One of Its Director Sri Anupam Agarwal Vs Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam Ltd. through Its Chairman and Ors.

Ram Babu Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Hod Personnel Admn Sri Sanjay Kumar Vs Ram Sundar Munda and Ors.

Ashrit Lakra Vs the State of Jharkhand