Allowed

Police 162 Jitendra v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC29 Mar 2023WPC/1663/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a writ petition challenging an order that enhanced the petitioner's departmental punishment after exoneration. The Court held the order unsustainable as the Commandant lacked power to review the order, no valid rule existed for enhancement, and principles of natural justice were violated.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.11.2014 enhancing the petitioner's punishment is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to all benefits arising from this decision.

Police 162 Jitendra Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S). No. 1663 of 2015

¶3

¶4

Police-162 Jitendra ………. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi

¶9

Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-5, Dahijor Camp., Deoghar.

¶10

………. Respondents .

¶11

¶12

CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK

¶13

----------For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Amrita Banerjee, AC to GP-I ----------

¶14

05/ 29.03.2023 Heard the parties.

¶15

2. Petitioner has thrown challenge to order dated 13.11.2014 (Annexure-3), passed by respondent No. 4, whereby punishment of withholding of salary for six months with non-cumulative effect, which is equivalent to one black mark has been awarded to the petitioner.

¶16

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, while the petitioner was deputed at A Company Camp – Churchu Thana, Hazaribagh, he took 6 days causal leave and 1 day Sunday total 7 days and reporting time was on 27.05.2014 but he did not report on scheduled date and gave his joining after 26 days, as such it is apparent that he remained out of service without leave. For his said misconduct, the Commandant issued charge-sheet dated 16.06.2014, in pursuance of which, he submitted his explanation to the commandant, which was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated by appointing Enquiry Officer. The petitioner participate in the departmental enquiry and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed the force order No. 1318/14 dated 07.08.2014, whereby petitioner was exonerated from charges and punishment of warning was

¶17

¶18

imposed against him. However, the same was later on cancelled and fresh order as contained in Force Order No. 1797/14 dated 13.11.2014 has been passed dehors the rules, which is under challenge.

¶19

4. Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously urges that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards Annexure-1 (Charges) and Annexure-2 (final order) passed by the Commandant.

¶20

5. From perusal of the final order it appears that petitioner was exonerated from the charges and punishment of warning was imposed upon him and further it was ordered to draw salary. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.11.2014 (Annexure-3), the same authority passed the order of withholding of 6 increments amounting to one black marks with noncumulative effect. The reasons for passing the impugned order is the findings of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, whereby it has been mentioned that petitioner was held guilty of the charges and as such, minor punishment could not have been inflicted. In view of the said finding vide memo No. 523 dated 26.09.2014, the earlier order stood cancelled and petitioner was imposed with punishment.

¶21

6. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel argues that same is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that the concerned authority is not empowered to review his own order. It is not a case that order has been passed by the Appellate Authority. It is reflected from order dated 13.11.2014, that the same authority has passed the order of punishment. Nothing has been brought on record to show as to how the petitioner was held guilty of the charges. It appears that the appellate authority was prejudiced inasmuch was without showing any consideration, the order has been passed. Though it has been mentioned that minor punishment could not have been awarded but still minor punishment has been inflicted against the petitioner.

¶22

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State justifying the impugned order submits that admittedly the Commandant was not empowered to review his own order but it was only on the direction of Deputy Inspector

¶23

¶24

General of Police, earlier order stood cancelled and the present order dated 13.11.2014 has been passed.

¶25

8. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law for the following facts and reasons:

¶26

(I) Petitioner was exonerated and not found guilty of the charges.

¶27

(II) Earlier a punishment of warning was inflicted by the Commandant. Thereafter, the said order was cancelled and fresh order has been passed against the petitioner holding him guilty of the charges.

¶28

(III) Once the petitioner was held to be exonerated from the charges on what basis and on what evidence, he has been held guilty of the charges that has not been made clear by the respondents.

¶29

(IV) Admittedly, power of review is not vested with the Commandant. Nothing has been brought on record that the punishment was enhanced by the Deputy Inspector General of Police under the provisions of Police Manual but Appellate Authority has the power to enhance the punishment but the same authority has no power to review its own order and that also without adhering to the principle of natural justice.

¶30

(V) It appears that the respondent-authorities have passed the impugned order in mechanical way.

¶31

9. In absence of any specific rule to change order of punishment, as per their suitability, the order 13.11.2014, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled for all benefits taking into consideration that the impugned order is not in existence.

¶32

10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶33

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶34

kunal/-

Police 162 Jitendra v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Police 162 Jitendra v. the 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

Hari Charan Rajak Vs Road Construction

Dr Meena Sahay Vs Human Resources Department

Nishantketu Vs Vinoba Bhawe University through Its Registrar and Ors.

Mina Devi Vs Human Resources Department

Manwa Devi Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Ajit Kumar and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.