Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 169 (PAT)

Jai Prakash Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-10

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order of punishment, as contained in annexure 4 dated 23.12.1996, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from services. 3. The orders confirming the order of punishment and consequential orders passed by the appellate authority and in the memorial have also been challenged. 4. It appears that for dereliction of duty, the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and a memorandum of charges, as contained in annexure 3, was served upon him. The petitioner replied the charges and thereafter inquiry was conducted, where other members of the escort party were examined and the disciplinary authority on the basis of the evidence of other members of the escort party found the charges proved against the petitioner, and, accordingly, the order of punishment was issued against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fact that the petitioner abandoned his rifle at Jhajha Platform and went to Chitranjan has not yet been proved and from the inquiry report, it would appear that the case was found to be just reverse to the extent that the petitioner got down at Jhajha due to his bowel disorder and discontinued his duty and at Chitranjan, the absence of the petitioner was reported and again the escort party came back from Chitranjan to Jhajha and the petitioner accompanied the escort party up to Chitranjan. It is further submitted that at best it may be a case of break of duty on the part of the petitioner, but, in no way, it is a case where the petitioner abandoned his rifle at Jhajha Platform and for such sort of dereliction of duty, the punishment of dismissal must be held to be disproportionate to the guilt. 6. From the inquiry report, as contained in annexure 2, it appears that the petitioner was to escort the trains in question from Chitranjan to Jhajha and again from Jhajha to Chitranjan, and, in fact, the petitioner escorted the train along with other members of the escort party from Chitranjan to Jhajha, but in return journey he could not follow the other members of the escort party due to bowel disorder and remained at Jhajha and again from Jhajha he was taken to Chitranjan and the matter was reported there. 7. 7. The other members of the escort party, namely, Parshuram Thakur, Jagdish Manjhi and Mahendra Pd. Singh, deposed before the inquiry officer that the petitioner had not completed his duty and he stayed at Jhajha with his rifle and from Jhajha he was taken to Chitranjan, where the matter was reported. No where these witnesses have stated that the rifle of this petitioner was found abandoned at Jhajha Platform, rather it appears that this petitioner along with his rifle was taken to Chitranjan, where the matter was ultimately reported. 8. The inquiry report, at it appears, thus, has been misread by the disciplinary authority treating the same as it was a case, where the petitioner had abandoned his rifle at Jhajha Platform and taking serious view of the matter, the order of dismissal has been passed against him. 9. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of dereliction of duty and the petitioner deserves some punishment. 10. It is true that it has been found to be a case of dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, but it cannot be said to be a gross case, that the petitioner had abandoned his rifle. The punishment of dismissal, in this view of the matter, is held to be disproportionate to the guilt and thus, the matter requires fresh consideration by the disciplinary authority. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed, order of punishment, as contained in annexure 4, and the consequential orders, as contained in annexure 5 and 6 are set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to take a decision afresh in accordance with law.