Dismissed

Jit Mohan Roy v. the State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand HC9 Feb 2023WPC/188/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged punishment orders regarding reversion to initial pay and dismissal of appeals/memorials in a departmental proceeding. Bench dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned orders upholding punishment of reversion to initial pay and dismissal of appeals/memorial affirmed.

Jit Mohan Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand and Others — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 188 of 2014

Jit Mohan Roy

… Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

Director General-cum-IG of Police, Jharkhand, Police Bhawan, near Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶9

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rail, Chutia, Ranchi

¶10

Superintendent of Police, Rail, Dhanbad

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

---------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Divya, AC to SC-III -----------

¶13

06/ 09.02.2023 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the punishment order dated 29.12.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Rail, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner was reverted to initial pay of Constable for three years in Departmental Proceeding No.78/2003 and also for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.459 dated 13.9.2006 passed by DIG of Police, Rail, Ranchi, by which, appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. Further, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 11.06.2007 passed by Additional Director General of Police, Rail, Jharkhand, by which, memorial preferred by the petitioner also stood dismissed. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to give all the consequential benefits after quashment of the impugned orders.

¶14

Earlier, the petitioner, had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6932/2006, by which a direction was given upon the I.G of Police, Rail to pass an appropriate order in memorial, filed by the petitioner, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 11.06.2007 and affirmed the order of punishment dated 29.12.2005 as well as appellate order dated 13.09.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, challenging the said orders.

¶15

¶16

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law as the same was not commensurate with the charges. He further submits that at time of occurrence, the petitioner was not on duty for guarding the Chandrapura Railway Police Station, which was attacked by the Nexalites as he was entrusted with the train escort duty as per the Command Certificate No.757673. The charges are vague since the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the incident of loot as his duty was elsewhere. The Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority while awarding major punishment of reversion to initial pay of constable for three years has not issued any show cause notice, which is against the Rule 826 of the Police Manual and as such, impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner is a constable, working in the lowest hierarchy in the Police Force, he ought not to have been reverted to his initial stage of appointment.

¶17

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Ms. Divya, learned counsel for the respondents justifies the impugned orders and submits that petitioner is a member of disciplined force, was not expected to flee away from the place of occurrence. The Police Station itself was attacked by the Nexalites. A member of the disciplined force has to face the situation, but the petitioner failed to discharge his duties, resulting into loot of arms, ammunition cash etc. in broad day light, which lowered the dignity, image, moral and character of the police force. The petitioner knowing well that the terrorists have attacked the police station, was sleeping in the rest room. She further submits that even the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that punishment order is contrary to Rule 832 is totally misconceived. The punishment order was passed in the year, 2005 itself and has lost its effect also.

¶18

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is a member of the disciplined force and did not present himself to fight against the Terrorists/Nexalites attack at the police station and knowing very well about the ongoing incident, he chosen to sleep in the rest-room, which amounts to unbecoming of a police personnel. The Police Officer/Constable like the

¶19

¶20

petitioner, who did not go to place of occurrence, is not suitable for the police force. However, it appears that a lenient view has been taken by the respondents, by inflicting punishment of reversion to initial salary of constable for three years. The punishment order is fully justified as the same has been passed, taking into consideration the Rule 832 of Police Manual. The charges against the petitioner was proved in the departmental proceeding and punishment order has been affirmed up to memorial. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organization. The petitioner being a member of Police Force, it was expected from him to maintain almost discipline, act with responsibility, performed his duty with sincerity.

¶21

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and as such, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.

¶22

Punit/-

Jit Mohan Roy v. the State of Jharkhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jit Mohan Roy v. the State of Jharkhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samuel Dungdung Vs Police

Arun Prasad Sahu Vs Home Department And Ors.

Thakur Rajesh Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Anil Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jawahar Prasad Singh Vs the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.