Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 836 (JHR)

Ram Bahadur Chhetri v. State Of Bihar

2002-08-07

TAPEN SEN

body2002
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner Ram Bahadur Chhetri was put under suspension with effect from 2.5.1995 and subsequently a charge-sheet was issued upon him containing the following charges :-- "(a) By order dated 13.12.1994 the Commandant, Bihar Military Police-I, Ranchi had directed the petitioner to relieve Havaldar 613 Sagar Chhetri from A Company and Sepahi 995 Rudra Kumar Nevar from F Company. This order was not complied with, as a result whereof the Commandant by his wireless message dated 12.2.1995 sent a reminder and also a warning that if the order is not complied with then severe action will be taken. Inspite thereof, the order was not complied with till 27.12.1995. (b) The second charge was that the Commandant by his wireless message dated 19.2.1995 had directed the A Company to move out from Muzaffarpur to Chatra. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the petitioner is said to have sent a wireless message on 25.2.1999 informing that the company had already reached Chatra. The charge against the petitioner was that this information was sent to misguide and/or to mislead. (c) The third charge was that the inspector General through his wireless message dated 17.4.1995 had issued an order through the Commandant that the A Company should move from Chatra to Aurangabad by 25.4.1995 but till 30.4.1995 the Company had not reached Aurangabad." 3. From a perusal of Annexure 4, which is an order of the Deputy Inspector General, Bihar Military Police-cum-Disciplinary Authority it is evident that he has not found the petitioner guilty against charges No. 2 and 3. So far as charge No. 1 is concerned, the respondents have broken up the charge in two parts and had held that the first part of charge No. 1 is not proved, whereas the second part is proved. This finding of the conducting officer appears to have been agreed upon by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and while acquitting the petitioner from the charges levelled against him in so far as charges No. 2 and 3 are concerned, he imposed the following punishment :-- (a) Warning and Censor. (b) He would not be entitled to any amount, save and except whatever he may have received during the period of suspension; and (c) That the period of suspension would be adjusted towards the due earned leave on full and half pay. 4. (b) He would not be entitled to any amount, save and except whatever he may have received during the period of suspension; and (c) That the period of suspension would be adjusted towards the due earned leave on full and half pay. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner has moved this writ petition, wherein he has made a prayer for quashing of the aforesaid order. 5. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also taking into consideration the findings of the conducting officer, this Court is of the view that the punishment against the petitioner appears to be extremely harsh. So far the charge No. 1 is concerned, it is not understood as to how the respondents have split up the charge in two parts and have stated that the first part is not proved whereas the second part is proved. The second part is dependent on the first part because the first part says that by order dated 13.12.1994 the Commandant, Bihar Military Police had directed the Havaldar and the Sepahi mentioned above to be relieved. The second part of the charge is that when this order not complied with, a reminder was sent, but even thereafter no compliance was made till 27.2.1995. The impugned order does not take into consideration the explanations given by the petitioner to the effect that by wireless message dated 24.4.1995, the Superintendent of Police, Chatra had given an order that without his permission, no person should be relieved for a different destination. 6. In that view of the matter, the order being extremely harsh and having been passed on the basis of absolutely no evidence, as is apparent from the impugned order itself as contained at Annexure 4, the same is hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently, with its being so set aside, the petitioner will now be entitled to all the consequential benefits as if the aforesaid order was not in existence. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed.