Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 188 (JHR)

Yakub Kumar Charles v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-03-13

TAPEN SEN

body2001
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Chatur-vedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. With their consent this writ petition is being disposed off at this stage. 2. The facts as it appears from the records of the case is that on 1.3.1992 at about 4 p.m. this petitioner along with his friend, Michael Tigga had consumed liquor in the house of the petitioner. After consuming liquor, Michael Tigga attempted to take liberties with the wife of the petitioner and even went to the extent of attempting to forcibly kiss her. Reacting, on the spur of the moment, perhaps himself having become intoxicating, the petitioner hit Michael Tigga on the head with a stout, which resulted in his injury, as a result whereof he (Michael) subsequently died in the T.M.H. at Jamshedpur. 3. According to the petitioner, he was tried in a criminal case also under the provisions of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 27/93 and by judgment dated 27.7.1994 delivered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, it was recorded that "in the total absence of evidence appearing against the accused in support of any prosecution allegations against him. I hold the accused not guilty of the offence alleged to have been committed by him and, therefore, acquit him of the charge levelled against him by the prosecution". 4. The petitioner states that for the same charges he was also proceeded against departmentally, vide Departmental Proceeding No. 128/1998 and by an order dated 27.7.1999 as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition, he was dismissed from service. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a departmental appeal and also moved before the then Ranchi Bench of the Honble Patna High Court, vide CWJC No. 2887/2000 which was disposed off on 5.9.2000, directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Subsequently, by order dated 13.1.2000 as contained in Annexure 8, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of dismissal. It is against these two orders, i.e. 27.7.1999 and 13.1.2001 that the petitioner has chosen to file this second writ petition. 7. 6. Subsequently, by order dated 13.1.2000 as contained in Annexure 8, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of dismissal. It is against these two orders, i.e. 27.7.1999 and 13.1.2001 that the petitioner has chosen to file this second writ petition. 7. Both the Dismissing Authority as also the Appellate Authority have apparently proceeded on holding the petitioner guilty of gross misconduct, indiscipline, misfit for service and on the charge that he was also a characterless police personnel. 8. Presently, in the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority which is contained in Annexure 8 (relevant portion is at page 34) the Appellate Authority himself states that the petitioner along with his friend Michael Tigga had gone to the quarter of the petitioner where both had consumed liquor, whereafter Michael Tigga attempted to take liberties with the wife of the petitioner, namely Jeevan Lata Charles and even went to the extent of attempting to forcibly kiss her, as a result whereof the petitioner got excited and he hit Michael Tigga with a stout in his hand, as a result whereof the said Michael Tigga subsequently died. 9. In view of such specific findings having been recorded by the Appellate Authority, it cannot be disputed that what the petitioner did on the spur of the moment was not a deliberate act but it was only to protect the honour and dignity of his own wife. Such an act could have attracted the provisions of the Indian Penal Code which, in the instant case, was also launched but which, ended in the petitioner having not been found guilty by a Court of competent criminal jurisdiction as stated above. Taking Alcoholic Liquor and that too in the residence/quarter by itself cannot constitute misconduct. This Court, therefore, does not understand as to how the Departmental Authorities have levelled charges of gross misconduct on the part of the petitioner. If protecting the dignity and honour of a women and that too of ones own wife can be said to be a misconduct then I suppose it would be a travesty of justice to departmentally punish people who have, attempted to prevent such mischief. It is nobodys case that the assault was preplanned or it had a motive behind it. If it were so then it would have been a case of "cool calculated murder". It is nobodys case that the assault was preplanned or it had a motive behind it. If it were so then it would have been a case of "cool calculated murder". On the contrary, it is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner having seen his wifes honour being threatened, acted on the spur of the moment. His act was a very natural phenomenon and such an act cannot be castigated as if it were an act of a delinquent or that of a criminal and that too, when the Criminal Court did not find him guilty at all. Since the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case as there was total absence of evidence against him, there is also no justification in departmentally punishing him for an act committed by him to protect the honour and dignity of his wife. 10. The impugned orders, therefore, are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the appropriate authority for passing the consequential order of reinstatement together with all benefits arising therefrom. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.