Quashed

Dilip Kumar Ram v. Police

Jharkhand HC14 Mar 2024WPC/5067/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Constable dismissed after prisoner escaped during escort challenged dismissal, appellate and revisional orders for breach of natural justice. Court found enquiry report not served and no cross-examination, quashed punishment orders and remitted to disciplinary authority for fresh consideration of quantum within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned dismissal, appellate and revisional orders quashed; matter remitted to respondents to pass appropriate order on quantum of punishment within six months.

Dilip Kumar Ram Vs Police — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S). No. 5067 of 2013

¶3

¶4

Dilip Kumar Ram ………… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi

¶8

3.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range, Daltonganj, Dist.-Palamau 4.Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, Dist.-Garhwa 5.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garhwa-cum-Conducting Officer, Dist.-Garhwa

¶9

………… Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

For the Petitioner	: Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
	Mrs. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate
	Mr. Manoj Kr. Ram, Advocate
For the Respondents	: Mr. Apoorva Singh, AC to SC (M)-II

¶12

¶13

13/ 14.03.2024 Heard the parties.

¶14

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.06.2012 passed by respondent No.4-Superintendent of Police, Garhwa in Departmental Proceeding No.37 of 2011, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from services. Further prayer has been made for quashing the appellate order as well as revisional order contained in Annexures-9, 9/1 and 12 of the writ petition. Further prayer has been made for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

¶15

3. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the year 2009. While posted in Garhwa, the petitioner along with one Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and the Havaldar and other constables were asked to report at police line for escorting the two prisoners from Garhwa District Jail to Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi and other to Dumka District Jail, Dumka. For compliance of the said direction issued by the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, petitioner along with escort party

¶16

¶17

proceeded for shifting the said prisoners, namely, Kumar Kishore Singh and Sujit Kumar Sinha from Garhwa District Jail to Ranchi and Dumka respectively. In view of the specific directions and obeying the command the vehicle was boarded with two prisoners and left for Ranchi and Dumka on 05.09.2011. It is specific case of the petitioner that for shifting the prisoners landmines proof vehicle are provided but in the instant case the same was not provided rather a general vehicle which was not fit for carrying the prisoners was provided. The vehicles were started for their destination and reached at Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar at Ranchi at 2:30 p.m and the prisoner, namely, Kunal Kishore Singh along with relevant document was handed over to the authority of Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar. After handing over the said prisoner at Ranchi, the petitioner along with police force had proceeded for Dumka at 3:25 p.m for handing over/shifting another prisoner, namely, Sujit Kumar Sinha. For the purpose of taking lunch, the vehicle was stopped at R. K. Hotel, Ormanjhi at 4:00 p.m. After having lunch proceeded further. While on way at 11:45 p.m hullabaloo was raised that the prisoner has fled away from the vehicle and one of the constable namely, Mahadev Singh was also missing. In view of the present situation they adopted all measures for searching the prisoners but were not successful as they took advantage of the forest and darkness and fled away. Immediately the message was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa on mobile phone and it was directed to report the same to the nearest police station. The officers of the nearby police station reached the spot and matter was enquired. Thereafter Mahadev Singh was traced out and on search key of Hathkari was found from his pocket. Thereafter FIR was lodged under Section 224 of the IPC. Mahadev Singh was made as main accused for helping the prisoner in fleeing away. Further the petitioner along with the entire escort party was put under suspension for the said incident vide memo No.2895 dated 08.09.2011. Thereafter a charge sheet was issued on 26.09.2011 and a departmental proceeding was initiated following the procedures and in the proceeding petitioner was held guilty of the charges. Thereafter agreeing

¶18

¶19

with the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police inflicted punishment passing an order of dismissal. Petitioner preferred appeal against the order of dismissal dated 13.06.2012 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The order of dismissal was affirmed vide order dated 19.10.2012 dismissing the appeal thereafter memorial was also preferred which also stood dismissed affirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority. After filing of the memorial petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.26 of 2013 for quashing the order dated 13.06.2012 passed by the respondent No.4 and also for quashing the appellate order dated 19.10.2012. This Court after hearing the parties disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Director General of Police to pass a fresh order. The Director General of Police vide order dated 28.06.2013 dismissed the memorial and hence this writ petition.

¶20

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned orders submits that impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law. The cardinal principle of natural justice was not adhere to as without serving the copy of the enquiry report and issuance of second show-cause notice the disciplinary authority has inflicted the punishment and the same has been affirmed by the appellate and revisional authority. Learned senior counsel further submits that even opportunity of cross-examination was not given to the delinquent, enquiry has been conducted ex-parte. Learned senior counsel further submits that petitioner constable was made scapegoat though he had not played any role in fleeing away the prisoner. He was never named in the FIR rather it was constable Mahadev Singh was who named in the FIR and was found guilty of the charges. Learned senior counsel further submits that the occurrence took place due to unsafe vehicle provided to the petitioner for carrying prisoner to Dumka. The allegation of consuming liquor is also falsified as no laboratory test was made to ascertain the correctness of the allegations. In absence of any laboratory examination it cannot be alleged that due to consumption of

¶21

¶22

liquor the prisoner fled away. Learned senior counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECR, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and submits that since petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and copy of the enquiry report was not served, he was highly prejudiced and as such better course is to remit the matter back and to start a fresh enquiry.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the contention of the learned senior counsel and submits that petitioner has been held guilty of the charges by the inquiry officer. No folly has been pointed out in the entire departmental proceeding. The charges were proved and petitioner was held guilty and thereafter giving ample opportunity of hearing the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of dismissal which was duly affirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority. Learned counsel further submits that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere in the matter of punishment since there is no procedural illegality. Serious charges has been alleged against the petitioner and as such the order of dismissal is fully justified.

¶24

6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and from perusal of the documents brought on record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that petitioner was inflicted punishment by the disciplinary authority merely on the ground that the enquiry officer has held the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority failed to appreciate that ample opportunity of hearing was not provided as enquiry report was not served to the petitioner and as such he was highly prejudiced. What were the materials before the enquiry officer on which petitioner has been held guilty of the charges were not provided to him and further in absence of any cross-examination it can be termed to be an ex-parte enquiry. The disciplinary authority ought to have assigned reasons for inflicting punishment of dismissal which appears to be harsh and disproportionate to the charges. Nothing has been brought on

¶25

¶26

record to show that how petitioner was involved in helping the prisoners in fleeing away. Never before any complaint was made against the petitioner neither it has been brought on record to show that intentionally the prisoner was helped by the petitioner in fleeing away. Normally best course would be to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority to start afresh from the stage of enquiry and by serving the copy of the enquiry report along with the second show-cause noticed and the enquiry officer be directed to conclude the enquiry.

¶27

The similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 wherein it was held as under:

¶28

“However, the judicial review of the quantum of punishment is available with a very limited scope. The court would frown upon only when the penalty imposed appears to be so disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that it is shocking to the conscience of the court. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.”

¶29

Petitioner has also assailed the impugned order on the ground of procedural illegality as neither opportunity of cross-examination was given nor the copy of enquiry report was served hence it can be comfortably inferred that impugned order of punishment is vulnerable for noncompliance of the principle of natural justice.

¶30

As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, I hereby quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 15.06.2012 as also the appellate order as well as revisional order contained in Annexures-9, 9/1 and 12 of the writ petition and remit the matter back to the respondents to consider afresh and pass appropriate order on the

¶31

¶32

quantum of punishment within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

Accordingly the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Pending I.A. if any, also stands closed.

¶35

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

¶36

Rohit/-

¶37

Dilip Kumar Ram v. Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Ram v. Police

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

Lipika Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Secretary Principal Secretary School Education and Literacy Depart

Dr Surender Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary Department of Helath Medical Education and Family Welfare

Dr Prashant Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare

K.Sushila Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Prakash Munjal And Ors. Vs Urban Development Department

Masih Marandi Vs Rural Dev Dept