Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1078 (JHR)

Ganga Ram Samad v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-05

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
JUDGMENT: Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner, a Police constable, has challenged the order passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby, the respondent no. 3 being the disciplinary authority, passed an order for dismissal of the petitioner from service after accepting the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer in a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner holding that the charges of grave misconduct of the petitioner was found to be established and proved. 3. The charge against the petitioner was that on 21.03.1998, at about 10:00 A.M., he and two other Constables assaulted one another Constable No. 265 Yogendra Mallik due to which, he received several injuries and because of this highhanded action of the petitioner, the image of the Police Department was tarnished. 4. In course of departmental proceeding, Constable 256 Yogendra Mallik was examined as a witness and he stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he was assaulted by Constable No. 694 Gardhish Soy, Constable no. 617 Mohd. Sultan Ahmad and Ganga Ram Samad (Petitioner). 5. The enquiry officer, on consideration of facts and materials on record, came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner stand proved and the said report was submitted before the Disciplianry Authority. 6. The Disciplinary Authority – Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, on consideration of facts and materials as well as enquiry report, submitted, passed the impugned order on 01.03.2000 whereby, he awarded punishment of dismissal from service. 7. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was also dismissed by order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 8. Mr. Abhay Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order of dismissal from service, submitted that the other two Constables who were also chargesheeted namely Gardish Soy and Mohd. Sultan Ahmad and were also departmentally proceeded but the major punishment of dismissal has only been passed against this petitioner only whereas, against those two Constables, have given the punishment other than the dismissal from service and thereby, the petitioner has been discriminated. Sultan Ahmad and were also departmentally proceeded but the major punishment of dismissal has only been passed against this petitioner only whereas, against those two Constables, have given the punishment other than the dismissal from service and thereby, the petitioner has been discriminated. He further submitted that as per the allegations against the petitioner, he assaulted the victim Yogendra Mallik indiscriminately with Lathi due to which he received severe injuries but no any injury report of aforesaid Yogendra Mallik was brought on record during departmental proceeding and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner assaulted the victim indiscriminately as alleged. 9. On the other hand, by filing a counter affidavit on behalf of the State respondents, it is stated that after full fledged departmental enquiry, the charges against the petitioner stood proved and then he has been awarded the punishment of dismissal because the action of the petitioner came within the purview of gross misconduct. The petitioner being a member of force assaulted another Police Constable on the road in a broad day light and due to such highhandedness and indisciplined action of the petitioner, the image of police force has been tarnished and therefore, he cannot be considered to be kept in a disciplined force. 10. Mr. Abhay Mishra submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate to the charges against him rather the punishment of dismissal from service is very harsh. 11. I do not find any special averment in the writ petition nor in the counter affidavit as what was the punishment awarded to the other two constables who were also involved in the aforesaid occurrence, therefore, no case of discrimination is made out. Moreover, they were departmentally proceeded separately and what was the evidence in their case is not known. 12. After going through the charge against the petitioner as well as the materials discussed by the inquiry officer and also the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, I am of the view that the petitioner being a member of Police force was expected to behave and act in a discipline and responsible manner. 12. After going through the charge against the petitioner as well as the materials discussed by the inquiry officer and also the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, I am of the view that the petitioner being a member of Police force was expected to behave and act in a discipline and responsible manner. If the members of the Police force who are in charge of maintaining law and order in the society would start behaving in such a manner and would start taking law in their own hands then what would be the situation in the society, can very well be imagined. Nobody would feel safe. A member of a Police force has to show a very high standard of discipline. Whereas, in the present case, the petitioner was found indulging in ‘Marpit’ with the colleague on a broad day light at a busy public place and as such, no lineant view can be taken in such matters. It is a case of gross indiscipline. Considering the offence committed by the petitioner, in my view, the punishment awarded to him does not require any interference. 13. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.