In a civil writ petition, the Patna High Court dismissed Sumeshwar Singh's challenge against his dismissal from service due to proved misconduct involving kidnapping. The Court held that the judiciary cannot reappreciate evidence in departmental inquiries and found no violation of natural justice or perversity.
No order as to costs.
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.20703 of 2018
======================================================
Sumeshwar Singh Son of Muneshwar Singh Resident of Ward No.2,Dihra Rohtas,Amai,Hasan Bazar,Bhojpur,Police Station Bikramganj,Distt.-Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manish Kumar – GP-4 Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
CAV ORDER & JUDGMENT
3 01-10-2019 The petitioner, a constable in the District Police, Muzaffarpur has been dismissed from service by an order issued vide Memo No. 1587 dated 08.06.2018, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, on the ground of his proved misconduct in a departmental proceeding. His misconduct related to an occurrence of June, 2017 for which Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 431 of 2017 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in which, he along with others is an accused. His appeal against the order of dismissal has been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 2/14
Range, Muzaffarpur by an order dated 21.08.2018, which is also under challenge in the present writ application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 3/14
Mile, HDFC Bank when he was moving in a motorcycle. Akhtar Sah had asked the victim to come along with him and others which twas objected to. Akhtar Sah, thereafter, called this petitioner and another constable Sanjeet Kumar on phone, who thereafter came in a police uniform. All of them thereafter took him to a place near Kanti Inter College and threatened him of his implication in a criminal case, labelling him as an ‘ ATM Chor ’ (a person involved in committing theft of cash from ATM). They were demanding Rs. Five lacs from him as ransom for his release. He is said to have informed his relatives, who, in turn, informed the police about the occurrence, thereafter. Based on written report of said Shashi Ranjan Kumar, the Ahiyapur Police Station Case No. 431 of 2017 was registered. The petitioner and another two constables were taken into custody and were subsequently put under suspension.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 4/14
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 5/14
which the enquiry Officer has reached, on the basis of appreciation of evidence available in the departmental enquiry. He has submitted, with reference to the evidence adduced during the departmental enquiry that there is no material to establish that the petitioner was involved in any way with the alleged occurrence of kidnapping of the complainant. He has submitted that the petitioner was assigned the duty of safeguarding the ATMs within the area of the police station and his movements cannot be said to be beyond the duties which he was discharging in his capacity as constable under the police station. He has referred to the evidence of Shashi Ranjan Kumar in the departmental enquiry to contend that even according to him, the petitioner had returned midway when said Shashi Ranjan Kumar was being taken to some other place by other persons. He has, accordingly, submitted that the action of the respondents requires interference by this Court in the present proceeding.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 6/14
of occurrence and taking the victim from the said place to some other place are proven facts. In any view of the matter, he contends, that once the disciplinary authority has applied his mind while agreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry Officer, which cannot be said to be without evidence or contrary to evidence, this Court may not disturb such findings by reappreciating the evidence. He has also argued that the appellate authority has passed a reasoned order while dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and for the said reason also no interference is required by this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 7/14
themselves to be the police personnel. When the two persons in police uniform came, Shashi Ranjan Kumar, was asked to accompany them ( the personnel in police uniform). The police personnel in uniform made the complainant sit in their motorcycle and took him to a place called Sanichara Asthan Four Lane where there were already 4-5 persons present in civil dress. They were demanding 4-5 lacs from the petitioner for his release. When the petitioner refused, they took him to Inter College near Kanti High School. About the persons in police uniform, he said they, had returned midway. It is further alleged that from the College the petitioner was being taken to some unknown place in a remote area. In the meanwhile with the intervention of the police, the complainant was rescued. One of the two police personnel who had made Shashi Ranjan Kumar sit in the motorcycle was the petitioner and the other constable Sanjeet Kumar. The Officer Incharge of Ahiyapur Police Station, Muzaffarpur was also examined as a witness in the departmental enquiry, who while supporting the charge against the petitioner, has stated that the criminal case against the petitioner and another has been found to be true after investigation, for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 364A,367 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 8/14
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 9/14
Sanjeet Kumar in the motorcycle and he was taken from the place where he was apprehended near Zero Mile HDFC Bank to the place called ‘Sanichara Asthan Four lane’ . This evidence has remained uncontroverted and there is no explanation coming forth for the informant being taken to the said place. At the Sanichara Asthan Four Lane , there were 4 to 5 persons present and a demand was being made for ransom. The return of the petitioner was thus, not before a demand was made by 4 to 5 persons in civil dress at ‘ Sanichara Asthan Four Lane ’ where he was taken by the petitioner and constable Sanjeet Kumar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 10/14
of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while dealing with departmental inquiry in case of State of A.P. Vs. Shree Rama Rao ( AIR 1963 SC 1723 ). The Supreme Court held that the High Court is not a Court of appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over the decision of the authorities holding departmental inquiries against a public servant. The High Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the Rules of natural justice are not violated. The Supreme Court has specifically held that where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent Officer is the guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review evidence to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The said decision has been quoted with approval in case of State of A.P. Vs. P.V.Chitra Venkata Rao reported in ( 1975 ) 2 SCC 557 . The principles of judicial review in the matters of departmental inquiries as laid down in case of State of A.P. Vs. S. Shree Rama Rao (supra) have been followed in two recent decisions of the Supreme Court in case of S. Sreesanth Vs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 11/14
BCCI reported in (2019) 4 SCC 660 and in case of Municipal Council, Nimach Vs. B. Mahadeo and others ( 2019) SCC online SC 1215 .
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 12/14
quoted decision of Supreme Court in case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 , paragraph 77 of which reads thus:-
“77. The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. It concerns should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers?
2. Committed an error of law.
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,
4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or,
5. abused its powers.
Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under:
(i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 13/14
(ii) Irrationality, namely,
wednesbury unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. V. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind 28, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the Court should, “consider whether something has gone wrong or a nature and degree which requires its intervention”.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20703 of 2018(3) dt. 01-10-2019 14/14
authority in the departmental proceeding as I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer nor with the decision of the disciplinary authority. The finding cannot be said to be suffering from any patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all. The conclusion arrived at in the departmental proceeding cannot be said to be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached such conclusion.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
arun/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in a departmental proceeding dismissing a police constable from service for proved misconduct.
Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority constitute perversity, error of law, or violation of natural justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of A.P. Vs. Shree Rama RaoReferred¶40
State of A.P. Vs. Shree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723) · Who else cites this
State of A.P. Vs. P.V. Chitra Venkata RaoReferred¶42
State of A.P. Vs. P.V. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557 · Who else cites this
S. Sreesanth Vs. BCCIReferred¶42
S. Sreesanth Vs. BCCI (2019) 4 SCC 660 · Who else cites this
Municipal Council, Nimach Vs. B. Mahadeo and othersReferred¶42
Municipal Council, Nimach Vs. B. Mahadeo and others (2019) SCC online SC 1215 · Who else cites this
R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of GujaratReferred¶45
R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat (2016) 14 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Tata Cellular Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶46
Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sumeshwar Singh
The State of Bihar
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
