Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1079 (JHR)

Manohar Toppo v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-05

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
JUDGMENT: Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is a Police Constable, has prayed for quashing that part of the order as contained in memo No. 165 dated 21.01.2003 (Annexure-8) so far as it relates to the petitioner depriving him from the salary for the period from 17.08.1995 till 21.01.2003 i.e. the period during which the petitioner was under suspension. 3. According to the petitioner, he, along with two other Constables namely Rama Shankar Singh and Tulsi Sao were proceeded departmentally for dereliction in duty. The charges against all the three including the petitioner was that they were given the custody of one prisoner for taking him to the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh for treatment on 18.11.1993 and to guard him but the prisoner who was under treatment in custody, escaped and, therefore, the petitioner as well as two others were proceeded departmentally for dereliction in their duties. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding, all the three persons including the petitioner were put under suspension. After the departmental proceeding all the three Policemen were found guilty for dereliction in their duties. The Constable Rama Shankar Singh, who was the guard incharge, was given punishment of reduction in his pay scale and brining him in the initial scale of pay. He was further awarded punishment that he shall not be given benefits of promotion for two years. This petitioner i.e. Manohar Toppo was also awarded punishment of reduction in pay scale and placing him in the initial scale of pay. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the proceedee Ram Shankar Singh filed an appeal before the appellate forum which was heard by I.G. (Prison), Bihar and he, by his order dated 23.10.1999 allowed the appeal of said Rama Shankar Singh by giving him benefits of doubt and thereby, set aside the order of punishment passed against him by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ-petition before this Court bearing C.W.J.C. no. 3626 of 1999 (R) which was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 13.06.2001 contained in Annexure-3 in order to enable the petitioner to pursue the review application filed by the petitioner and pending before the Superintendent of Jail, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ-petition before this Court bearing C.W.J.C. no. 3626 of 1999 (R) which was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 13.06.2001 contained in Annexure-3 in order to enable the petitioner to pursue the review application filed by the petitioner and pending before the Superintendent of Jail, Hazaribagh. Since the review petition was not being disposed of and as such, the petitioner filed again a writ petition in this Court bearing W.P.(S) No. 6048 of 2001, which was disposed of by order dated 21.12.2001 contained in Annexure-4, by which a direction was made to the authority concerned to expedite the hearing of the review petitioner and to dispose of the same preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant thereto, the order as contained in Annexure-8 has been passed on 21.01.2003 whereby, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was modified and reduced but, it was directed that the petitioner would not get the salary for the period during which he was put under suspension. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the same facts, same evidence and same allegation, other proceedees namely Rama Shankar Singh, who was also awarded the same punishment by the disciplinary authority but, later on, his punishment has been set aside and he has been paid the salary for the period during which he was under suspension but the petitioner has been treated differently and thereby, he is being discriminated. 6. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the case of the present writ petitioner cannot be equated with the aforesaid security guard Rama Shankar Singh who had the responsibility to look into the arrangements but the petitioner was directly responsible for the safety of the prisoner and, at the time of escape of the prisoner, the petitioner was found absent from the duty. It is further stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the order as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 7. It is further stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the order as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 7. After having gone through the enquiry report contained in Annexure-1, it appears that the allegations, the evidence as well as charges against all the three proceedees were exactly the same and all the three policemen were given the charge of the prisoner and all the three duty bound to bring and guard the prisoner from Central Jail, Hazaribagh to the Sadar Hospital under their custody and, therefore, it cannot be said that the responsibility of all the three persons were not similar rather I find that the duties and responsibilities of all the three persons were the same. 8. Therefore, from the facts noticed above, I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the other Policeman Rama Shankar Singh has been allowed to draw the salary for the periods during which he was under suspension then, the petitioner cannot be treated differently. 9. Accordingly, this petition is being disposed of at this stage itself by directing the authorities concerned to allow the petitioner to draw salary for the period during which he was put under suspension during the pendency of the departmental enquiry. 10. With this stands disposed of. RC/SI observation and direction, the writ petition