Disposed

Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Home

Jharkhand HC8 Jan 2024WPC/7886/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A dismissed police constable challenged his dismissal, rejection of appeal and memorial, alleging violation of natural justice in the departmental enquiry. The court found insufficient proof and held dismissal disproportionate, quashed all three orders, and remitted the matter for fresh decision on a lesser quantum of punishment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; matter remitted to respondents for fresh decision on punishment other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement within twelve weeks, with service period counted for sen

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through Its… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 7886 of 2012

¶4

Arun Kumar Singh … … … Petitioner

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi

¶7

Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad

¶8

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Area, Bokaro

¶9

Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand.

¶10

… … … … Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II

¶13

08/08.01.2024 Heard the parties.

¶14

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the office order as contained in Memo No. 1358, dated 06.03.2010, whereby and whereunder he has been dismissed from the service. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the memo no. 744, dated 04.06.2010, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by him against the order of dismissal from the service has been rejected. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the office order dated 26.08.2011, passed by Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand by which the Memorial of the petitioner has been rejected without application of mind and on the basis of an unreasoned order. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to immediately reinstate him in services and grant him full back wages and consequential benefits.

¶15

3. According to the petitioner, he was working as a Constable in Jharkhand Police under the State of Jharkhand. During his service tenure, he was issued a charge sheet alleging therein that on 28.11.2007, at 6.30 a.m. when the duty slips were being issued, he came with a stick in his hand and started beating one Jagdish Mahto. When petitioner was sent to the Medical Officer, Police Centre, Dhanbad for his medical examination, it was opined that he had consumed alcohol and consequently he was put under suspension vide order dated 03.12.2007. His suspension was however revoked and thereafter, departmental proceedings initiated vide letter dated 12.03.2008. However, without giving any notice to him to

¶16

¶17

¶18

appear before the Enquiry Officer, the evidences of the witnesses were recorded by the Enquiry Officer and finally enquiry report was submitted holding him guilty of charge. He was neither given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses nor he was heard and as such serious prejudice has been caused. Upon receipt of enquiry report, he filed his reply dated 27.02.2010 denying the charges levelled against him. Said Jagdish Mahto was never sent for medical examination. Without considering his reply, the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, vide his letter bearing Ref. No. 1358, dated 06.03.2010, dismissed the petitioner from the service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the DIG, Coal Area, Bokaro was also rejected vide order dated 04.06.2010. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Memorial but the same also stood rejected by the IG (Training) vide his order dated 26.08.2011 without assigning any reason. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.

¶19

4. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice without affording opportunity to the petitioner. Neither blood nor urine test was conducted to certify that petitioner had consumed liquor. Petitioner was never served any notice to appear before the enquiry officer and all the witnesses have been examined behind his back. There was no evidence against the petitioner and allegation of assault is also false and frivolous. The impugned orders have been passed in hot haste and are disproportionate to the nature of misconduct alleged against him. The impugned orders are also in violation of provisions enshrined under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further argues that even if it is accepted that petitioner had committed certain mistake, but the punishment is totally disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. The major punishment awarded to him is not justifiable and as such this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may direct the respondents to consider the same

¶20

5. Learned counsel places reliance upon the Judgment passed in the case of Munna Lal Vs. Union of India reported in (2010) 15 SCC 399

¶21

¶22

¶23

and submits that the impugned orders may be quashed and respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits.

¶24

6. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned GP-II submits that allegations against the petitioner is very serious as he had seriously injured Jagdish Mahato and was found drunk. There is no lacunae in departmental proceeding and the punishment awarded is proportionate to the allegations levelled against him. Proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. After considering the materials available against the petitioner and after affording proper opportunity to him, he was dismissed from the service. There is no merits and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

¶25

7. Having gone through rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons:

¶26

a. Admittedly there was no previous allegations of such nature against the petitioner nor any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against him.

¶27

b. It has been held in the case of Munna Lal Vs. Union of India reported in (2010) 15 SCC 399 that in absence of sufficient proof, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed such penalty and further held that the punishment imposed was illegal and the appellant in the said case was held entitled to be reinstated in service and it was further held that period of absence would be treated on duty for other service benefits such as seniority, increment and pension. I find in the instant case also, petitioner is entitled for the same benefits.

¶28

c. In absence of firm evidence, I am of the view that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved satisfactorily nor it was so grave as to attract harsh punishment of dismissal from the service. In the absence of sufficient proof, the disciplinary authority should not have imposed such harsh penalty nor should the same have been affirmed by the appellate and revisional authority. Therefore, the punishment imposed was illegal.

¶29

d. However, in view of the admitted facts, the petitioner being a

¶30

¶31

¶32

member of disciplined force cannot be left scot-free. However, from perusal of the charge levelled against the petitioner, it appears that the charge is not as grave as it warrants dismissal from service. The respondent-authorities before passing the impugned order, ought to have considered that after passing of the impugned order, the livelihood of the petitioner is at stake and as such, respondents should reconsider the matter on the quantum of punishment. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of India & ors ., reported in (2019) 4 Supreme 614 , has held as under:-

¶33

“There is really no difference in the proposition, which is sought to be propounded except that in the latter judgment the principles have been succinctly summarised in the last paragraph of the judgment, which read as under:

¶34

19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows:

¶35

19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.

¶36

19.2. The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.

¶37

19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court.

¶38

19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, 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.

¶39

( emphasis supplied )

¶40

8. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines,

¶41

legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the view that impugned penalty order as contained in Memo No. 1358, dated 06.03.2010 as also the memo no. 744, dated 04.06.2010 and the office

¶42

¶43

¶44

order dated 26.08.2011, passed by Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand by which the Memorial of the petitioner has been rejected, are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the respondents for taking fresh decision on the quantum of punishment other than dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement. The petitioner’s service during this period would be treated for other service benefits such as seniority, increment and pension etc. Let an order regarding quantum of punishment be passed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶45

9. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶46

Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Home

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

Khushboo Khatoon Vs Taslim Ansari

Nagina Devi Vs Mithlesh Prasad

Chhanda Chakravorty Vs the Director D a v Public School and Ors.

Urmila Devi Vs Rural Works Department

Dileshwar Ram Vs Agriculture and Sugar Cane Development

Umeshwar Prasad Singh Vs Drinking Water and Sanitation