The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging his dismissal from police service. The court held that natural justice principles were followed and past misconduct was relevant for imposing punishment.
The writ application was dismissed with no endorsement of relief.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4239 of 2005
====================================================== Govind Jha son of Sri Vijendra Jha, resident of village Salempur, P.S. Phalka, Distinct- Katihar, at present dismissed constable no. 256 of the Police, District-Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.The Home Commissioner, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 3.TheDirector General and Inspector General of Police, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 4.The Deputy Inspector general of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa. 5.The Superintendent of Police, Saharsa. 6.The then Conducting Officer-cum-Sergeant Major, Police Line, Saharsa. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binit Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER
5 12-12-2012 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa, by which he has been dismised from service, which order has not been interfered with by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in appeal or in the memorial filed before Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. There is a counter affidavit and rejoinder on records. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.
The petitioner was a constable in the Bihar Police. He was on guard house duty. On 16.1.2000, at about 10.30 a.m., he reported sick. In the guard house register, he entered his sickness
Patna High Court CWJC No.4239 of 2005 (5) dt.12-12-2012
2
and allegedly went to the police doctor. The petitioner alleges that the police doctor immediately diagnosed as a patient of tuberculosis .The petitioner alleges that on the next day i.e. 17.1.2000 he gave a written application in the office of the Superintendent of Police alleging that he had been diagnosed with tuberculosis and as such sought one month’s leave. He left station. Being unauthorized absent, he was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. After about six months he reported to duty. Upon his reporting to duty, his suspension was revoked clearly mentioning that as departmental proceeding had already been initiated and he had reported back to duty, the suspension was being revoked. In the departmental proceeding repeated efforts were made to seek petitioner’s co-operation. He refused to co-operate. As the petitioner alleges that he was totally unaware of the departmental proceeding, which on the face of it, is a false statement inasmuch as the very order revoking his suspension of which he was aware, itself shows that a departmental proceeding was pending. Thus, his plea that he was unaware of the departmental proceeding is a pretence or an excuse and cannot be accepted. All the authorities were examined and then all the depositions were sent to the petitioner, which he received. The receipts are on records. The petitioner has now
Patna High Court CWJC No.4239 of 2005 (5) dt.12-12-2012
3
denied that there was any receipt . Such a stand now taken after receiving all the documents. This again is a pretence or an excuse. The petitioner thereafter responded. The enquiry officer thereafter prepared report adverse to the petitioner and sent it to the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police having perused the enquiry report and agreeing with the enquiry report , issued notice to the petitioner noting all the facts that were deposed against him in the enquiry proceeding and noting his defence as was taken before the enquiry officer, gave a prima facie finding of accepting the report of the enquiry officer and indicating that in view of those findings, punishment of dismissal was to be imposed. The petitioner was required to show cause against the same. The petitioner filed his show cause and not being satisfied the Superintendent of Police then passed final order of dismissal. This order was not interfered in appeal or thereafter, as noted above.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the whole proceeding was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice and as such stood vitiated. He secondly submits that once an enquiry officer had submitted report against the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police ought to have first given him the report and given him an opportunity to contradict the report. Thereafter if
Patna High Court CWJC No.4239 of 2005 (5) dt.12-12-2012
4
the Superintendent of Police intended to punish, he ought to have issued another show cause to the petitioner against the proposed punishment. Those courses have not been followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that while imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal, the Superintendent of Police took into account the earlier proceeding in which the petitioner had been imposed major punishment, which the Superintendent of police could not have taken note of.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
It must be kept in mind that the petitioner is not an ordinary employee of the State. He is a member of uniform service in which discipline is of primal importance. This is not first time the petitioner conducted himself in this manner. Annexure-G to the counter affidavit clearly shows that in 1994 also he had absconded for a considerable period. He had put up a defence that he treatment at Mental Hospital, Kanke, the defence of which could not be proved before the departmental authority that he was mentally sick, which was not accepted. He was thus awarded major punishment but escaped the dismissal. Now coming to the present, it would be seen that no doubt after registering sickness in the guard register, on 16.1.2000, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4239 of 2005 (5) dt.12-12-2012
5
petitioner left duty and on the same day he went to the police doctor. He claimed that the police doctor immediately declared that he was a patient of tuberculosis. Thereafter on 17.1.2000 he gave an application allegedly to the Superintendent of Police that he had been diagnosed with tuberculosis and as such he was proceeding on leave for one month. It is surprised that how diagnosis of T.V. was made. Medical diagnosing at the first instance is difficult and not possible. However, the fact remains that immediately finding him on unauthorized absence , the petitioner was suspended and a departmental proceeding initiated . The petitioner says that he was unaware of all these proceedings. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not even bother to find out about his monthly pay. He did not even bother to receive it because had he done so he would have realized that being under suspension his pay has been with-held. Thus, to say that he was unaware of the disciplinary proceeding cannot be accepted. Notices were sent to him. he refused to appear. Once witnesses were examined, the conducting officer/ enquiry officer sent the depositions to the petitioner. The petitioner duly granted receipt receiving the same He subsequently took a plea that the statements appended to the notice were not given to him. He did not mention it while receiving. The receipt shows that at every stage the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.4239 of 2005 (5) dt.12-12-2012
6
trying to obstruct the proceeding. Then the enquiry officer submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police. The law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & ors –v- B.Karunakar & ors. since reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727. To my understanding, the proceedings have to be in consonance with the principle of natural justice. The enquiry report is, thus, required to be disclosed soliciting objection and then a person is to be told of the proposed punishment. Here though technically they were not done in two different stages but the enquiry report is to be found in Annexure 10, the notice issued by the Superintendents of Police to the petitioner against the proposed punishment. All the evidence and all the statements are discussed. The defence was taken by the petitioner before the enquiry officer. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied effective opportunity to contradict the enquiry report or to defend himself against the proposed punishment. Principle of natural justice was fully complied. There cannot be any prejudice to the petitioner in any manner. In my view, natural justice is not an unruly horse or a bull in a china shop. It has a purpose. The purpose has been well served by the procedure followed in the present case. Thus, in my view, the petitioner cannot contend of denial of natural justice causing any
Patna High Court CWJC No.4239 of 2005 (5) dt.12-12-2012
7
prejudice to him. Then learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Superintendent of Police is debarred from considering his past conduct. I am afraid, this cannot be accepted. It is not disputed that earlier also petitioner had absconded and took a false defence, which was all reported and major punishment imposed. Undeterred in spite of being a member of uniform service, he again absconded. In such a situation punishment to dismissal has been imposed. I do not think that it would be proper for this Court to interfere in the matter. Discipline has to be maintained. Thus, I find no merit in this application. The application is dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)
singh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the departmental proceedings against the petitioner were vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice.
Whether the Superintendent of Police could take into account the petitioner's earlier misconduct while imposing dismissal.
Whether the dismissal order of the petitioner from police service is sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & ors –v- B.Karunakar & ors.Applied¶23
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & ors –v- B.Karunakar & ors. since reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 · Who else cites this
Govind Jha
The State Of Bihar
The Home Commissioner
The Director General and Inspector General of Police
The Deputy Inspector general of Police
The Superintendent of Police
Navaniti Prasad Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
