Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 282 (JHR)

Babban Ram v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-03-17

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Saurav Arun learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The only prayer of the petitioner us stated in para 1 of the writ application is for direction to the respondents to declare that the petitioner has been promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. 20th August, 1994, on the ground, which has been formulated in para 3 of the writ petition by the petitioner, that the respondents have no jurisdiction to deny the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of police, when the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges made in Departmental proceeding Nos. 94/91 and 3/95. 3. It is stated in the writ petition that by issue of Annexure-1, the order dated 20.12.1995, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector from the post of Asst. Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 26.8.1994, but the benefit of the promotion was denied to the petitioner by the Supdt. of Police on the sole ground that the departmental proceedings were pending against him. 4. The petitioner has further stated in the writ application that he was held guilty in both the departmental proceedings and thereafter he filed departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police and both the appeals filed by the petitioner were allowed and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges made in departmental proceeding Nos. 94/91 and 3/95. This statement has been made in paragraph 16 of the writ application. It has further been stated in paragraph 17 of the writ application that the Deputy Inspector General of Police by his order dated 31.10.1998 while allowing the appeal also directed that in view of acquittal from the charges the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. 5. Neither the order passed by the disciplinary authority nor of the appellate authority has been annexed with the writ petition in support of his statement made in paras 16 and 17 of the writ petition. 6. In paragraph 25 of the writ application it has further been stated by the petitioner that the respondents have no jurisdiction to deny the petitioner the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, when the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges made in Departmental Proceeding Nos. 94/91 and 3/95. 7. 6. In paragraph 25 of the writ application it has further been stated by the petitioner that the respondents have no jurisdiction to deny the petitioner the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, when the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges made in Departmental Proceeding Nos. 94/91 and 3/95. 7. From the affidavit portion, it appears that the statements made in paragraphs 16 and 17 have been sworn and affirmed as, true to my information and derived from the relevant records, whereas the statements made in paragraph 25 in the writ application has been affirmed to be the statements true to his knowledge. 8. The State respondent has filed counter-affidavit denying the statements made by the petitioner annexing as Annexure-A, the orders passed by the appellate authority in appeal filed by the petitioner against the order imposing punishment in Departmental Proceeding No. 3/1995. Further, the order passed by the appellate authority in the appeal against the order imposing punishment in Departmental Proceeding No. 94/91 has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter- affidavit. 9. This Court is shocked and surprised to see the conduct of a member of State Police force. From a bare perusal of the orders, as contained in Annexure-A, it is apparent that the petitioner was not exonerated or acquitted of the charges which were found to be true against him in the Departmental Proceeding rather the appellate authority, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner holding it to be without any merit. Similarly, from perusal of Annexure-B, which is the order passed by the appellate authority in Departmental Proceeding No. 91/94 it appears that the appellate authority also affirmed the findings of the disciplinary authority but however, reduced the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months. 10. Therefore, prima facie I find that the statements made by the petitioner in the writ application as referred above are against the records and the same are absolutely wrong and false. It appears that the petitioner, who is a member of police force, has intentionally tried to mislead this Court by making absolutely wrong and false statements on oath in order to get a favourable order. 11. It appears that the petitioner, who is a member of police force, has intentionally tried to mislead this Court by making absolutely wrong and false statements on oath in order to get a favourable order. 11. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands at all and therefore he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever by this Court by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly this writ application is dismissed. 12. This Court prima facie finds that the statements of the petitioner is not based on the records, rather they are incorrect/false and therefore, issue notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why an appropriate action be not taken against him including that of criminal prosecution for making false statements in the writ petition on oath before this Court. Let the notices be issued by the office on the residential address as well as in official address of the petitioner. 13. The show cause, if any, must be filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the notice by this Court. 14. Let the office register it as a separate case. Application dismissed and direction issued.