Dismissed police constable challenged his dismissal for unauthorized absence in a Letters Patent Appeal against the rejection of his writ petition. The court held sufficient opportunity was afforded in the ex-parte inquiry and that repeated absences justified dismissal, declining interference under Article 226.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 247 of 2023
Lalan Ram aged about 57 years, S/o Bansropan Ram, R/o Rahambigha, PO Satbahini, PS Bishrampur, District Palamau, State Jharkhand
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand
2.The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi having its registered office at Jharkhand Police Headquarter, Dhurwa having its office at Dhurwa, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Arms Forces, Dhurwa, having its registered office at PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand
4.The Commandant, Jharkhand Arms Forces-10, Mahila Vahini, Hotwar, having its registered office at PO and PS Lalpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand ... Respondents
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-II
---------------
12th January 2024
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
I.A. No. 7241 of 2023
The appellant has filed this interlocutory application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 61 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.
LPA No. 247 of 2023
2 LPA No. 247 of 2023
695 ” t he Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“17. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is well circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has earlier been examined by this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India ; H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya and recently by a three-Judge Bench of this Court (of which one of us is a member) in SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava wherein this Court has held as under : ( Ajai Kumar Srivastava case , SCC pp. 626-27, paras 24-28)
“ 24 . It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
25 . When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
( i ) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
( ii ) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
( iii ) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
3 LPA No. 247 of 2023
26 . It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
27 . It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28 . The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”
4 LPA No. 247 of 2023
punishment of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon the appellant which is plainly in violation of the natural justice.
5
LPA No. 247 of 2023
demonstrated that the order of punishment is so outrageous to the logic or disproportionate to the charge framed and found proved that shocks the conscience of the Court. The present case does not fall under the category of such cases. In “ Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. Hariprasad Drupadrao Jadhao” (2006) 3 SCC 690 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the question of punishment shall fall within the domain of the executive powers of the departmental authority.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Tanuj/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether judicial review under Article 226 permits reappreciation of evidence in departmental proceedings.
Whether dismissal from service for repeated unauthorized absence, following an ex-parte inquiry with notice to the delinquent, was disproportionate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
UCO Bank v. Krishna Kumar BhardwajRelied on¶6
(2022) 5 SCC 695 · Who else cites this
Ranjit Thakur v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶12
(1987) 4 SCC 611 · Who else cites this
Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. Hariprasad Drupadrao JadhaoRelied on¶12
(2006) 3 SCC 690 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. P. GunasekaranReferred¶5
(2015) 2 SCC 610 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. Phulpari KumariReferred¶5
(2020) 2 SCC 130 · Who else cites this
Pravin Kumar v. Union of IndiaReferred¶5
(2020) 9 SCC 471 · Who else cites this
SBI v. Ajai Kumar SrivastavaReferred¶5
(2021) 2 SCC 612 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Lalan Ram
State of Jharkhand
The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Arms Forces, Dhurwa
The Commandant, Jharkhand Arms Forces-10, Mahila Vahini, Hotwar
Shree Chandrashekhar
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
