The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal and departmental proceedings against a police constable. The court rejected the petitioner's claim that his unauthorized absence was due to mental illness, noting a discrepancy between the treatment period and the absence date.
None. The writ petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4357 of 2013
Nahun Oraon … … … Petitioner
V E R S U S
… … … Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE DR JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner Mr. Atanu Bannerjee, Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kumar Munda, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to GA
03/07.02.2023 Heard.
Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter no. 02/D-06-01-43/ 2012, Dated 04.01.2013, issued vide Memo No. 02/D, by Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand, Ranchi; the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Area, Ranchi, issued vide memo no. 993, dated 17.03.2012 as also the order of dismissal of petitioner from service, vide Ranchi District Order No. 5156 of 2008, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi issued vide memo no. 3877, dated 07.11.2008/25.10.2008. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow him to join services with all consequential benefits.
As per factual matrix, petitioner was appointed as a constable in the erstwhile state of Bihar on 15.10.1999. After his appointment, petitioner was discharging his duties efficiently and to the satisfaction of the superior authorities. It is case of the petitioner that in the year 2002, seven days’ compensatory leave was sanctioned to the petitioner and after expiry of the said period, he gave his joining. Petitioner remained absent from 31.03.2005 up to 05.06.2005 and thereafter joined the services on 06.06.2005. Thereafter, for the charges of gross negligence towards his duties and for
RC/
2
unauthorized absence, petitioner was proceeded departmentally in Departmental Proceeding No. 91 of 2006.
It is specific case of the petitioner that unauthorized absence was neither intentional nor deliberate rather in compelling circumstances as he was mentally ill and was undergoing treatment and it was only after recovery, he presented himself before the authorities by preferring an Appeal, which was not considered and he was dismissed from the service mechanically on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the orders of the superior authorities, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court.
Mr. Atanu Bannerjee assisted by Mr. Prabhat Kumar Munda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the punishment order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that earlier petitioner had given prior intimation and taken prior leave and after exhausting the leave, joined the services. It was due to compelling circumstances that he was prevented from joining the services and as such it cannot be termed as wilful and deliberate absence from duty. Learned counsel further submits that he underwent treatment before a leading practitioner of RINPAS and a certificate to that effect has also been submitted before the Appellate Authority but the same was not considered and the Appellate Authority, relying upon the findings of the disciplinary authority, has affirmed the order of punishment. Learned counsel further argues that it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to consider the reply and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order as to why the Medical Certificate and other contention of the petitioner were not considered and plea raised by the petitioner was rejected. In absence of any specific findings, the Appellate Order can be comfortably said to be nonest in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that the punishment of dismissal from the service is too harsh and by awarding the capital punishment, the authorities have snatched livelihood of a poor constable and his family. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment order being too harsh, should be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remitted back before the authorities for fresh consideration on the point of quantum. Learned counsel
RC/
3
places heavy reliance upon the Judgments passed in the case of Regional Manager, UCO Bank and another Vs. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj reported in (2022) 5 SCC 695; State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh reported in (2022) 5 SCC 563 [Para-22 and 23] and Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610.
Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to learned GA-II representing State vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and further submits that the writ petition requires no interference for the reasons that what has been argued is contrary to the certificate annexed in the writ petition. Learned counsel further draws attention of the Court towards the Medical Certificates which is at pages-38 to 40 and further submits that from perusal thereof it clearly transpires that the petitioner was undergoing treatment at RINPAS and certificate of Dr. Ashok Nag reflects that the treatment started on 06.08.2003 and continued till 12.02.2004 and on recovery, certificate was issued on 29.03.2004. From the certificate dated 29.03.2004 it is clear that after recovery, petitioner was found fit to join duties. The unauthorized absence was for the period 31.03.2005 and 06.06.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that petitioner was undergoing medical treatment during that period and as such because of compelling circumstances, he failed to appear before the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel emphatically argues that contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not praiseworthy rather the same is misconceived in view of the certificate annexed by him in the writ petition itself. Learned counsel further submits that it was a case of wilful absence and a person who is a member of the disciplined force, cannot be allowed to desert the police force in the manner in which he has done. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has tried to dupe this Court also by bringing on record the certificates which are not relevant to prove charges against him. Learned counsel places reliance upon the Judgment passed in the case of Sujit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2022) 4 JBCJ 694; Suresh Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and others reported in (2022) 4 JBCJ 256 and the order dated 30.11.2021, passed in the case of
RC/
4
Ashok Kumar Tudu Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S) No. 419 of 2019 .
Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant case for the following facts and reasons:
RC/
5
judicial review but this is not a case where there is requirement of any judicial review.
As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, judicial pronouncement as well as in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find no merits and no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed.
RC/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be quashed where the unauthorized absence during charges did not align with the period of medical treatment.
Whether the appellate order suffers from non-service of notice or failure to consider medical evidence due to ex-parte proceeding.
Whether the punishment of dismissal was excessive or arbitrary warranting judicial intervention under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Regional Manager, UCO Bank and another Vs. Krishna Kumar BhardwajReferred¶24
Regional Manager, UCO Bank and another Vs. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj reported in (2022) 5 SCC 695 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka and another Vs. UmeshReferred¶24
State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh reported in (2022) 5 SCC 563 · Who else cites this
Union of India and others Vs. P. GunasekaranReferred¶24
Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 · Who else cites this
Sujit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and othersReferred¶28
Sujit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2022) 4 JBCJ 694
Suresh Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and othersReferred¶28
Suresh Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and others reported in (2022) 4 JBCJ 256
Ashok Kumar Tudu Vs. The State of Jharkhand and othersReferred¶28
Ashok Kumar Tudu Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S) No. 419 of 2019
Nahun Oraon
The State of Jharkhand
Director General of Police
Inspector General of Police (Training)
Deputy Inspector General of Police
Senior Superintendent of Police
S.N. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
