Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 710 (JHR)

Laldeo Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-07-16

N.N.TIWARI

body2004
JUDGMENT N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of tlie cider dated 21.6.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 4) as contained in Annexure-10 whereby the petitioner lias been awarded punishment of dismissal in a departmental proceeding and for quashing of the order dated 5.11.2002 passed by the D.I.G.. South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranch! dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-12 and also the order dated 17.6.2003 passed in revision application being No. J.S.R.D.O. No. 1328/ 2003 passed by the Director General of Poliee-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi as contained in An-nexure-14 by which the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The short fact of the case is that the petitioner was a Hawaldar in Jharkhand Police and since the month of December 2001 he was posted as incharge of Court Hazat, Jamshedpur in East Singhbhum District. The petitioners case is that one constable was posted under him for performance of duty of production of accused persons before different Courts from the Court Hazat. The Court Hazats are usually under the charge of Sub-inspector of police who act as a Court Officer. Sub-inspectors and the persons of other ranks are deployed keeping in view the number of Courts and persons to be kept in Hazat, At the relevant time except the petitioner-a Hawaldar-and one constable no body was deputed for production of the accused persons in different Courts. On 18.1.2002 also he was the Hazat in-charge with only constable namely. Umeshwar Upadhyay for performing the duty of production of the accused persons before the Courts. Accordingly the petitioner sent Umeshwar Upadhyay, the only constable deputed with him to produce three under trial prisoners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and he himself took care of the Hazat. While the said three under trial prisoners were being brought back to Hazat after their production in the Court, one of them. namely. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, escaped from the custody. The petitioner immediately reported the same to the Jail Superintendent, Jamshedpur. The Jail Superintendent lodged an FIR which was registered as Bistupur PS. Case No. 19/2002 dated 18.1.2002 under Section 224 of the IPC (Photo Copy Annexure-1 to the writ application). 3. According to the petitioner although there was no lapse on his part in due discharge of his duty, he was surprisingly served with a charge sheet. The Jail Superintendent lodged an FIR which was registered as Bistupur PS. Case No. 19/2002 dated 18.1.2002 under Section 224 of the IPC (Photo Copy Annexure-1 to the writ application). 3. According to the petitioner although there was no lapse on his part in due discharge of his duty, he was surprisingly served with a charge sheet. The said charge sheet has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-3. The petitioner was imputed wiLh the charge of dereliction of duty and lapses in performance of his duly due to which the prisoner Akhilesh Singh escaped from the police custody. It was alleged that he was vitally involved in facilitating escape of the said prisoner. The petitioner filed reply denying the said charge and stating, inter alia, that he was nol at all responsible for, neither he has got any nexus with the said incident of escaping of Akhilesh Singh who dodged and ran away from the custody of the constable Ulnesh Upadhyay. He denied that there was any lapse on his part or dereliction of duty and prayed for his exoneration. An enqiry Officer was appointed who is said to have conducted the enquiry and on conclusion submitted his report. Annexure-B, to the counter affidavit filed by the State is the enquiry report. According. to the peLiLioner the enquiry was not in accordance with law and there was violation of the principles of natural justice and he was not given proper opportunity for his defence. It was stated that the witness who were examined as departmental witnesses were the persons who were neither posted in the Court campus nor were present at the relevant time and the enquiry officer erroneously drawn his conclusin on the basis of the witnesses who were only the hearsay witnesses and were not competent. According Lo the petitioner on the basis of such colourable and illegal enquiry report, the disciplinary authority arbitrarily awarded punishment of dismissal from service as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said punishment order the petitioner, filed departmental appeal before the DIG South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranch! who also dismissed the appeal summarily by his order dated 5.11.2002 as contained in Annexure-12. The petitioner then preferred revision before the Director General of Police, Jharkhand who rejected his revision application by order dated 17.6.2003 as contained in Annexure-14. 4. Aggrieved by the said punishment order the petitioner, filed departmental appeal before the DIG South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranch! who also dismissed the appeal summarily by his order dated 5.11.2002 as contained in Annexure-12. The petitioner then preferred revision before the Director General of Police, Jharkhand who rejected his revision application by order dated 17.6.2003 as contained in Annexure-14. 4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which they have supported the said order as contained in Annexures-10, 12 and 14 saying the same as legal, sound and valid orders. It is stated that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the departmental proceeding and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. According to them the charge of dereliction of duty. disobedience and Irresponsible behaviours of the petitioner has been established and on that basis the order of punishment has been passed, which has been confirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities and there is no infirmity in the said orders warranting any interference by this Court. 5. Mr. Dhananjay Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the orders of punishment against the petitioner are wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The said order of punishment passed -by the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur and the orders of the appellate authority and the revisional authority as contained in Annexures-10, 12 and 14 of the writ petition respectively are wholly vitiated in law and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and are liable to be quashed by this Court. According to the learned counsel the very charge sheet has a shaky look containing vague and un-specific charge without any clear particulars. The petitioner has been grossly fastened with the charge of lapses on his part in discharge of his duty and dereliction of duty. According to the learned counsel there is no description of the expected duty, in the situation which has not been done by the petitioner or the instruction he disobeyed so as to charge him for disobedience. Mr. The petitioner has been grossly fastened with the charge of lapses on his part in discharge of his duty and dereliction of duty. According to the learned counsel there is no description of the expected duty, in the situation which has not been done by the petitioner or the instruction he disobeyed so as to charge him for disobedience. Mr. Dubey submitted that Rule 248 (A) of the Bihar Police Manual (1) provides that the police Officer generally of the rank of Sub-InspecLor should be the in-charge of the Court office and the number of Sub-Inspectors and other ranks in district headquarters Court office shall be kept keeping in view the number of Courts and persons to be kept in Hazat. Apart from this. a Junior Sub-Inspector and other subordinate ranks shall be attached with the headquarters Court office for purpose of Session Court and their strength shall depend on the number of cases committed to the Court of Sessions. According to the learned counsel at the relevant time contrary to the said prescribed provision the petitioner who was a Hawaldar was deputed in the charge of the Court Hazat along with only constable Umeshwar Upadhyay, though according to him, there was a number of Courts and a number of accused persons were to be produced in the Courts at Jamshedpur. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner as Hawaldar being in-charge the Court Hazat could not leave the Court Hazat where several under trial prisoners were housed and as such the said Umeshwar Upadhyay, the only constable deployed with him was deputed to produce the three prisoners In the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. While returning from the Court after production of the prisoner Akhilesh Singh dodged from the custody of Umeshwar Upadhyay. The petitioner thereafter immediately informed the authorities Including the Jail Superintendent and took all possible steps which should have been taken in such circumstance. According to the learned counsel the charges being vague and un-specific, seriously prejudiced the petitioner who could not be able to file an effective show cause reply and even the enquiry was not in accordance with law. There was blatant violation of rules of natural justice and on the basis of the colourable enquiry report the disciplinary authority has drawn a wrong conclusion without any application of mind and has awarded the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner. There was blatant violation of rules of natural justice and on the basis of the colourable enquiry report the disciplinary authority has drawn a wrong conclusion without any application of mind and has awarded the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate authority has not discharged his duty and has not dealt with the grounds of appeal as required by law and has passed cryptic order which is not at all sustainable in law. Similarly the revisional authority. the Director General of Police, has also not applied his mind and disposed of the revision application in most perfunctory manner. The petitioner has been thus denied fair treatment by the said authority. 6. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned J.C. to the learned A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there is no illegality and informity in the orders o, the disciplinary authority or the appellate and revisional authority which have been passed on the basis of the material and evidences on record and the same are valid and legal. The learned counsel, however, did not dispute that on 18.1.2002 only the petitioner and one constable were deputed in the charge of the Hazat. The learned counsel for the respondents also fairly admitted that there is vagueness in the charge but according to him that cannot itself be a ground for quashing the orders passed by the competent authorities. According to him the charges were subsequently specified in the enquiry report and whatever irregularity was there in the charge sheet that had been corrected in the enquiry report and thereby the petitioner has not been prejudiced in any way. On these grounds the learned counsel for the respondents supported the said orders. 7. After hearing both the parties at length and perusing all the documents and materials on record, I and that there is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the vagueness in the charge sheet (Annexure-3) is concerned, from its bare reading it is evident that no specific description has been given to constitute the charge of dereliction of duty undutifulness or disobedience and the bare words as lapses, dereliction of duty and undutifulness have been used in the charge sheet. So far as the vagueness in the charge sheet (Annexure-3) is concerned, from its bare reading it is evident that no specific description has been given to constitute the charge of dereliction of duty undutifulness or disobedience and the bare words as lapses, dereliction of duty and undutifulness have been used in the charge sheet. The charge reads as follows : "Zab aap Jamshedpur Court me padasthapit thhe to dinank 18-1-2002 ko Shri Om Prakash Kabra ke apharan kand ke mukhija abhiyukt Akhilesh Kumar Singh ko Court, me peshi karne ke kram me apke kartabya ke prati lapanoahi, akarmanyata. kartabyahin-la ke chalte abhiyukt Akhilesh Singh police hirasat se bhagne me saphal ho gaya. Abbiyukt ko bhagane me apke dwara Mahatwapurna bhumika nibhai gai hai. Uprokt karwai apke kar-labifalunta, nishkriyata awam sandigdh acharan ka parichayak hai." It is apparent from the reading of the same that on such vague charges it is di-licull, to file any categorical reply and in dial view of the matter, in my opinion, the said vagueness in the charge has greatly prejudiced the petitioner. The said vagueness in the charge goes to the root of the proceeding. On the said charge the departmental proceeding was initiated, proceeded and concluded by enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has relied upon the evidences of Asfak Hussain Khan, D.S.P. (P.C.R.) who deposed that at the time of production of the accused Akhilesh Kumar Singh, he was not handcuffed. The said D.S.P. at the relevant time was posted at police control room. Another witness Mahesh Pd. Singh is a crime reader in the office of the Superintendent of Police and tliird witness is Basudeo Singh who was also posted in the office of the Superintendent of Police. The said witnesses were not present at the spot being posted elsewhere at that time cannot be said to be competent to prove the said charge and their hearsay evidences cannot be relied upon to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge and for awarding punishment of a dismissal. The Supreintendent of Police, disciplinary authority, has solely relied on the said enquiry report and held the petitioner guilty of the charges and awarded punishment of dismissal. The order of the appellate authority and revisional athority are cryptic and nonspeaking. There is no discussion of tlie evidences and the grounds taken before them rather there are conclusions without giving cogent reasons. The order of the appellate authority and revisional athority are cryptic and nonspeaking. There is no discussion of tlie evidences and the grounds taken before them rather there are conclusions without giving cogent reasons. It is now well settled that any order visting a person with evil consequences must be supported by just and valid reasons to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. Non-fulfilment of the said Constitutional requirement vitiates the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-10, 12 and 14 to this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the said orders as contained in Annexures" 10, 12 and 14 are quashed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.