Allowed

Jeevan Ram v. State of Raj.

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2018SAW/107/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against removal from police service. Court found main charge of beating disproved by complainant's own testimony that appellant saved him. Found punishment of removal excessive for indiscipline regarding entry/register, substituting censure while maintaining salary forfeiture.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; appellant reinstated in service; punishment of removal substituted with censure; forfeiture of salary maintained.

Jeevan Ram Vs State of Raj. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.107/2011

¶3

Jeevan Ram s/o Sh.Chetan Ram, aged 42 years, by caste Meghwal, resident of Village Jaisas, Police Station Merta Road, District Nagaur.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Police Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer. 3. The District Superintendent of Police, Nagaur District, Nagaur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Ranjeet Joshi For Respondent(s) : Ms.Sweta Bora

¶10

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Judgment

¶12

Reserved on 04/09/2018

¶13

Pronounced on 12/09/2018

¶14

Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. :

¶15

The appellant/writ petitioner joined the police service on 03.09.1986, after qualifying the regular recruitment process.

¶16

The appellant/writ petitioner was served with a chargesheet alongwith memorandum of charges under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 04.03.1995, in which charge No.1 was that the appellant, while working on 06.07.1994, went to the quarter of Kumbha Ram s/o Multana Ram at Northern Railway Gate, Main Gachhipura, and while abusing him, the appellant beat him up. Thereafter, in

¶17

[SAW-107/2011]

¶18

(2 of 10)

¶19

relation to the said incident, an FIR was lodged by Kumbha Ram against the appellant at Police Station, Gachhipura for the offences under Sections 451, 323 and 504 IPC, wherein challan was filed on 28.08.1994.

¶20

Charge No.2, as mentioned in the memorandum of charges, was that the appellant was called by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Makrana ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the officer’ ) and he did not make entry in the record, as per the order of the officer regarding Police Station, Gachhipura to Makrana, and further on 08.07.1994, the appellant/writ petitioner misbehaved with the officer. A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the appellant on 27.05.1995.The enquiry officer after examining 13 prosecution witnesses, recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant/writ petitioner.

¶21

A detailed representation was also submitted by the appellant on 24.08.1996 before the disciplinary authority, who upon consideration of the enquiry report and while accepting the same, imposed the punishment of removal from service upon the appellant/writ petitioner, alongwith the penalty of forfeiture of his salary from 11.04.1994 to 07.01.1995 vide order dated 31.12.1996.

¶22

The appellant/writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer against the aforesaid order dated 31.12.1996. The said appeal was also dismissed on 17.10.1997. Thereafter, the appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4155/1997, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 10.02.2009.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that on a careful examination of the evidence rendered by

¶24

[SAW-107/2011]

¶25

(3 of 10)

¶26

the prosecution witnesses before the enquiry officer, no case against the appellant/writ petitioner is made out. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant to support the case of the appellant/writ petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the enquiry report. In this series, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has pointed out, in brief, the following evidence rendered by each of the prosecution witnesses before the enquiry officer.

¶27

Kumbha Ram/complainant, who was PW-1 before the enquiry officer, has stated that while he was cooking dinner in his quarter, Dulichand and Hari Ram came there. Kumbha Ram further stated that Shrawan Ram also came to his quarter and started abusing Kumbha Ram. Kumbha Ram PW-1 also stated that Jeevan Ram, the appellant/writ petitioner, came there and saved Kumbha Ram from the hostile attitude of Shrawan Ram. Shrawan Ram was threatening Kumbharam that he shall beat Kumbharam. Kumbha Ram further stated that the hostile Shrawan Ram was taken away by Hari Ram and Jeevan Ram. Kumbha Ram categorically stated that Jeevan Ram did not beat him. Kumbha Ram further clarified that Shrawan Ram had beaten him up and Jeevan Ram had in fact saved him from Shrawan Ram.

¶28

Hari Ram, who was PW-2 before the enquiry officer, has stated in his evidence that on 06.07.1994 at about 9 o’ clock in the evening when he was going home, he saw that there was commotion in the quarter of Kumbha Ram, and thus, he rushed to the quarter with one Babu Khan, who was trailing him. When he reached inside the quarter of Kumbha Ram, he found that Dulichand, Kumbha Ram, Shrawan Ram and Jeevan Ram were there and Shrawan Ram was beating Kumbha Ram. Hari Ram

¶29

[SAW-107/2011]

¶30

(4 of 10)

¶31

further stated that Jeevan Ram and Dulichand were trying to save Kumbha Ram from Shrawan Ram.

¶32

Dulichand, who was PW-3 before the enquiry officer in his evidence has also confirmed the aforesaid incident, while stating that Shrawan Ram had caught the hands of Kumbha Ram, and Jeevan Ram slapped Kumbha Ram, but Dulichand PW-3 could not specifically make out as to whether the slapping was done by Jeevam Ram or Shrawan Ram due to darkness. Dulichand further reiterated that he does not know whether the beating to Kumbha Ram was given by Jeevan Ram or Shrawan Ram.

¶33

Mukarab Khan, who was PW-4 before the enquiry officer, has stated that he was Head Mohreer, Police Station, Makrana, and on 08.07.1994, Constable Jeevan Ram came before the officer and submitted that he may be sent back to Gachhipura, as his father was very ill, upon which the officer asked Jeevan Ram, if he had made his entry at Thana Makrana, to which Jeevan Ram said that he did not make any entry, whereupon the officer went away saying, ‘ do whatever you want ’.

¶34

PW-4 Mukarab Khan further stated that Jeevan Ram’s behaviour was not good and he acted in an indisciplined manner. In the cross-examination, Mukarab Khan further stated that the indisciplined behaviour of Jeevan Ram was the result of his not being granted leave on account of his father’s illness by the officer; but once the incident was reported in the Roznamcha, then Jeevan Ram had apologized to the officer for his behaviour. 13. Raniaram, who was PW-5 before the enquiry officer, has reiterated the exact stand taken by Mukarab Khan PW-4, but denied that Jeevan Ram made an apology to the officer in front of

¶35

[SAW-107/2011]

¶36

(5 of 10)

¶37

him, and stated that he was not privy to the talks between Jeevan Ram and the officer.

¶38

Navlaram, who was PW-6 before the enquiry officer, has stated that he came to know about the incident that happened on 06.07.1994 in the night in the railway quarter, on which he informed the officer, and on being summoned by the officer, he sent Jeevan Ram to the officer at Makrana. Navlaram further substantiated the lodging of the FIR against the appellant/writ petitioner.

¶39

Parmaram, who was PW-7 before the enquiry officer, has stated that while being posted at Police Station, Gachhipura, he heard that an incident had happened in the railway quarter, in which Shrawan Ram and Jeevan Ram beat up Kumbha Ram. Parmaram also acknowledged the fact that he did not see the incident, but had only been informed of the same.

¶40

Prahlad Singh, who was PW-8 before the enquiry officer, has stated that he was not on duty at Police Station in the night on 06.07.1994, but had heard on 07.07.1994 that Jeevan Ram and Shrawan Ram had beaten up Kumbharam. 17. Satyaveer Singh, who was PW-9 before the enquiry officer, has stated that on 07.07.1994, he was informed on telephone by the SHO, Gachhipura that Constable Jeevan Ram had gone to the railway quarter of Kumbha Ram and had beaten him up, and thereafter, on the instructions of the SHO, Jeevan Ram was sent to Makrana on being summoned by the officer there. Satyaveer Singh further stated that Jeevan Ram had never made his entry and he required leave immediately, and if leave is not granted, Jeevan Ram informed that he shall go to his home without leave.

¶41

[SAW-107/2011]

¶42

(6 of 10)

¶43

Nem Singh, who was PW-10 before the enquiry officer, was again a hearsay witness, who merely stated that he had heard about the incident.

¶44

Babu Khan, who was PW-11 before the enquiry officer, has categorically stated that he was not an eye witness to the incident as he was not present at the place of incident, but had heard that such incident had taken place.

¶45

Jabbar Singh, who was PW-12 before the enquiry officer, has stated that he had merely heard that such incident had happened, but he had no personal knowledge of the incident.

¶46

Raghuveer Singh, who was PW-13 before the enquiry officer, has stated that he had not seen the incident and was not an eye witness, but he had heard that some incident had taken place in the quarter of Kumbha Ram, Gate Man, Gachhipura Railway.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner thus submits that from the examination of evidence led by the aforementioned thirteen witnesses, it is writ large, on the face of the enquiry report, that the incident at the quarter of Kumbha Ram was not supported by any of the witnesses, and in fact, Kumbha Ram/complainant PW-1 has himself stated in his statement that Jeevan Ram had saved him from the hostile attitude of Shrawan Ram.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has further submitted that none of the witnesses have been able to refute the statement made by Kumbha Ram PW-1, and in fact, the stand of Kumbha Ram has been supported by PW-2 Hari Ram.

¶49

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner also stated that the enquiry report did not have an iota of evidence,

¶50

[SAW-107/2011]

¶51

(7 of 10)

¶52

which could implicate the appellant/writ petitioner in the first charge. The only reason why the enquiry officer has agreed with the said charge is that an FIR was lodged against the appellant/writ petitioner, in which challan was filed.

¶53

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the conduct of the appellant/writ petitioner, who was part of a disciplined Force, did not warrant any leniency, and thus, learned counsel for the respondents justified the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶54

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the order of removal from service passed against the appellant/writ petitioner was justified, as the gross misbehaviour and indiscipline on the part of the appellant/delinquent called for such punishment, and once the evidence was properly led, then there was no reason why any interference in such order should be made.

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as carefully perused the record of the case, including the enquiry report and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses contained therein.

¶56

This Court finds that PW-1 Kumbha Ram/complainant himself has stated that Jeevan Ram had tried to save him from the hostile attitude of Shrawan Ram, who was trying to beat Kumbha Ram, while abusing him. Kumbha Ram/complainant has repeatedly reiterated that Jeevan Ram was the saviour and had in fact saved Kumbha Ram from the hostile attitude of Shrawan Ram.

¶57

[SAW-107/2011]

¶58

(8 of 10)

¶59

This Court has also carefully examined the stand taken by Hari Ram PW-2, who reiterated the stand taken by Kumbha Ram/complainant PW-1, by stating that Jeevan Ram had in fact saved Kumbha Ram from the hostile attitude of Shrawan Ram. Dulichand PW-3 is a non-confirmatory witness as he merely stated that he does not know, who actually beat up Kumbha Ram, whether it was Jeevan Ram or Shrawan Ram. Dulichand stated that he could not see the incident properly due to the darkness.

¶60

This Court has also carefully seen the evidence of Mukarab Khan PW-4, who has stated that the reason of Shrawan Ram getting anxious before the officer was that he required leave due to illness of his father, and thus, was not prepared to make entry in the record. PW-4 Mukarab Khan has further stated that the indisciplined behaviour of Jeevan Ram with the officer was due to refusal of leave to Jeevan Ram on account of illness of his father and further he himself apologized to the officer.

¶61

PW-5 Raniaram has reiterated the stand taken by Mukarab Khan PW-4.

¶62

PW-6 Navlaram, PW-7 Parmaram, PW-8 Prahlad Singh, PW-9 Satyaveer Singh and PW-10 Nem Singh have not seen the incident, as per their statement rendered before the enquiry officer. PW-11 Babu Khan, PW-12 Jabbar Singh and PW-13 Raghuveer Singh have stated in their statement that they have not seen the incident and have merely heard about the same, and thus, do not provide any strength to the case of the respondents. 33. Thus, on the face of it, this Court finds that the enquiry report clearly indicates that the first charge has completely collapsed and there was no reason why the disciplinary authority and the enquiry officer could not have taken any other view of

¶63

[SAW-107/2011]

¶64

(9 of 10)

¶65

charge No.1, particularly in light of the fact that the prosecution witnesses did not support charge No.1, and in particular, complainant Kumbha Ram PW-1 had categorically stated that the appellant/Jeevan Ram had in fact saved him from the hostile behaviour of Shrawan Ram.

¶66

This Court does not see any reason in the impugned orders justifying the recording of finding of guilt against the appellant/writ petitioner regarding charge No.1, and at best, even if charge No.2 is found to be made out, as the appellant admittedly suffering from anxiety due to illness of his father and he was trying to over-persuade the officer for grant of leave on that count, then also such a conduct on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner, even if believed, would not justify the harsh punishment of removal from service.

¶67

Thus, this Court holds that charge No.1 stands disproved against the appellant/writ petitioner, and for charge No.2, this Court finds that punishment of removal from service passed against the appellant/writ petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency, and therefore, punishment of removal from service is substituted by the punishment of censure. The order of forfeiture of the salary of the petitioner from 11.04.1994 to 07.01.1995 is however maintained.

¶68

Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondents dated 31.12.1996 (except for forfeiture of salary from 11.04.1994 to 07.01.1995) and the order dated 17.10.1997 are quashed and set aside. The order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge is also quashed and set aside. The appellant/writ petitioner shall be accordingly reinstated in service. However, he shall be entitled for all consequential benefits notionally.

¶69

[SAW-107/2011]

¶70

(10 of 10)

¶71

It is made clear that this Court makes the aforementioned intervention, while recording the conclusion that charge No.1 is not proved and charge No.2 does not have the kind of gravity, which shall justify passing of the order of removal from service against the appellant/writ petitioner, and thus, such order is shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency.

¶72

The present special appeal is accordingly allowed in the

¶73

above terms.

¶74

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶75

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ.

¶76

Skant/-

Jeevan Ram v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevan Ram v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Rajendra Kumar Bhola

N.I.C.Ltd., Udaipur Vs Smt.Shanta Devi and Ors.

State and Ors. Vs Smt. Sukhi Kanwar and Anr.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Nathu Singh

State and Anr. Vs Shri Bhanwar Singh and Anr.

Kanti Lal Bheel Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.