Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1040 (PAT)

Jitendra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-09-23

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2003
Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of 12 August, 2003 on C.W.J.C. No. 1960 of 2003 : Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2. The petitioner is a constable. After a departmental inquiry he was dsmissed. In the writ petition his contention was that he was not given a show cause and, thus, was denied hearing at the departmental inquiry and that the departmental inquiry is vitiated. He further contended that the criminal action against him stood dismissed and there was no reason why the departmental inquiry was also not consigned. In so far as the criminal action is concerned, the petitioner, the record shows, received benefit of the doubt. 3. The contention of learned counsel on the Letters Patent Appeal is that the learned Judge misdirected himself by ignoring the facts on record that the petitioner was without notice to shov cause and was denied an opportunity. If that be the case, a question does arise on what exactly the petitioner did to invite the departmental proceeding and simultaneously a criminal proceeding. The petitioner is a constable. Rather than the Court put the facts it will be appropriate that the facts be reproduced as they are in the counter affidavit for the simple reason that the petitioner evaded to file a rejoinder affidavit. These are : "That on 26.2.91 at about 6 to 7 p.m. during evening hours while Supta Mukherjee was taking tea in her room, this petitioner Jitendra Singh along with his other criminal associates entered forcefully taking deadly weapons like fire arms etc. in their hands. They had come on Maruti 21 PS, BEJ-2001 and were 10 to 12 in numbers. They were witnessed by Dr. Ajoy Ghosh and his wife Asha Ghose.They assaulted Supta Mukherjee, committed riot, assaulted, abused, took cash, articles and committed mischief with her by causing damage and loss to Supta Mukherjee. On information, Police rushed and Deputy Superintendent of Police, city got success apprehending this petitioner on spot and thereafter a case bearing Kotwali RS. case No. 110/91 u/ss 147, 148, 149, 354, 448, 323 of l.P.C. read with Section-35 of Arms Act was registered and petitioner was remanded to jail custody. The investigation of the case was taken up. It was supervised by Senior Police Officials and finding the case to be true, charge sheet was submitted against him. case No. 110/91 u/ss 147, 148, 149, 354, 448, 323 of l.P.C. read with Section-35 of Arms Act was registered and petitioner was remanded to jail custody. The investigation of the case was taken up. It was supervised by Senior Police Officials and finding the case to be true, charge sheet was submitted against him. As the petitioner was police constable and he was arrested on spot in doing serious criminal cognizance offence, which is against the conduct of Government employee and as such he was put on suspension, draft charge was prepared, it was served to him and departmental proceeding was started against him. That in accordance with established principles of law, following procedure of ethics and natural justice, departmental proceeding was got conducted by Sri B.K. Choudhary, Sergeant Major-cum-Conducting Officer and found him guilty and sent file to S.P., Bhagalpur, where entire file was perused by S.R, Bhagalpur and thereafter last show-cause was asked, vide Memo no. 944/R.O. dated 30.5.95 by Special messenger and after considering the entire aspects of departmental proceeding; he was dismissed by Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur vide memo no. 944/R.O. dated 30.5.95 and order was communicated to Senior S.R, Patna for its compliance. That the statements made in paragraph nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are either related with Kotwali RS. Case No. 110/91, his transfer, conduction of departmental proceeding, finding of enquiry Officer, submission of show-cause, dismissal by S.R, Bhagalpur and confirmation of dismissal order both by D.I.G. E.R., Bhagalpur and Zonal I.G., Bhagalpur and all these facts are matters of record and in this context lot of waters have flown earlier and as such it needs no further comments." 4. After perusing the counter affidavit the Court put questions to learned counsel for the petitioner whether it was correct that the petitioner was in the house where Supta Mukherjee was within and Dr. Ajoy Ghosh and his wife Asha Ghose were also present, he was arrested at the spot and that he is a constable, the answer to these questions were in the affirmative. 5. The charges against the petitioner are contained in the counter affidavit itself. 6. The counter affidavit shows that the petitioner received show cause notice. He replied to it. There was an inquiry and a departmental appeal. 7. 5. The charges against the petitioner are contained in the counter affidavit itself. 6. The counter affidavit shows that the petitioner received show cause notice. He replied to it. There was an inquiry and a departmental appeal. 7. The petitioner conveniently evaded answering the counter affidavit by rejoinder affidavit. If the petitioner could not reply to the counter-affidavit then what he could not controvert, thus, is the record. He had filed a show cause. There was an inquiry and even he preferred a departmental appeal. 8. Regard being had to the circumstances that the petitioner had assaulted a woman, this Court ought not to interfere this appeal. 9. Dismissed.