Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 929 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2004-09-09

body2004
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order of punishment dated 7.4.1999 and the order passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of punishment, as contained in annexures 7 and 8, respectively. 3. It appears that for the incident dated 3.5.1996 the petitioner used provocative language before the Superintendent of Police and he tried to create nuisance in course of transaction of official duty of the Superintendent of Police. Article of charges, accordingly, was served upon him. The petitioner replied the charges and thereafter the matter was enquired into and inquiry report was submitted finding the charges proved. On the basis of the inquiry report, the order of punishment, as contained in annexure 7, was passed dismissing the petitioner from services. The punishment of dismissal has been affirmed in appeal and the memorial, subsequently, was dismissed. 4. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that at the face of the article of charges, it would appear that the petitioner had only raised his grievances before the Superintendent of Police and provocative language even was not used nor there was any mass protest by the police personnel at the behest of the petitioner, and, therefore, the disciplinary authority could not have subjected the petitioner to the order of dismissal and a lenient view of the matter could have been taken. Learned counsel further submitted that the authorities have erred in taking into account the past antecedents of the petitioner as those antecedents were not included in the article of charges. Learned counsel further contended that the punishment could have been awarded to the petitioner commensurate with the guilt keeping in view the provisions as laid down In Rule 826 of the Bihar Police Manual (hereinafter to be referred to as "Manual") 5. Mr. S.J. Rahman, learned Government Pleader No.7, on the contrary submitted that since the petitioner was a member of Armed Forces, there was no question to take lenient view of the matter and the acts committed by the petitioner amounted to misconduct, and, therefore, the order of dismissal is justified. It is further contended that even on quantum of sentence, the petitioner does not have any case and the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is further contended that even on quantum of sentence, the petitioner does not have any case and the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 6. From the article of charges, it appears that the Superintendent of Police, Munger had visited the Police Line, Munger to hear the grievances of the petitioner and when the petitioner raised his grievances before the Superintendent of Police, it created some sort of annoyance to the Superintendent of Police, and, accordingly, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. 7. From the article of charges, it appears to me that the petitioner tried to put his grievance before the Superintendent of Police. There is nothing in the article of charges to show that any sort of provocation was made, leading to commotion and shouting of slogans against the Superintendent of Police. 8. Keeping in view the charges levelled against the petitioner and considering the quantum of punishment awarded to him, in my view, the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from services appears to be disproportionate to the guilt and the disciplinary authorities should have acted in the matter in accordance with Rule 826 of the Manual, which provides the manner of punishment etc. 9. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders impugned are not sustainable in law. 10. In the result, this application is allowed the orders impugned, as contained in annexures 7 and 8, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned to pass necessary orders in light of the provisions as laid down in Rule 826 of the Manual in accordance with law.