Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1430 (JHR)

Subhas Kumar Suman v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-13

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner while serving as constable in Dhanbad Railway Police, was served with memo of charge by the Superintendent of Police, Railway Police, Dhanbad, alleging that he did not report to his duty with his ammunition on 18.6.1998 and on 19.6.1998 in spite of specific order and instead of that he under the influence of liquor entered into a quarrel with shopkeepers Vijay Tiwari and Vikash Agarwal and used abusive language. The petitioner was asked to show cause, which was submitted by him, wherein he took a plea that on the alleged date of occurrence, he was under medical supervision and he was suffering from vomiting and stomach trouble. The show cause of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and thereafter a departmental enquiry was initiated against him, in which the petitioner also participated and on the basis of the evidence and material on record, the Enquiry Officer found the charges against the petitioner to be established and then he submitted his report. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police on consideration of facts and materials placed before him passed an order on 31.7.1999 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner thereafter preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector of Police, Railway, but the same was also dismissed by order dated 6.6.2000. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order of his dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order of the appellate authority affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner by filing a supplementary affidavit has brought on record a copy of the order passed by Patna High Court on 7.4.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 2728 of 2000 in order to show that one other constable, namely, Dhurendra Rai, who was also facing similar charge and he was also dismissed from service after departmental enquiry, has been directed to be reinstated in service after quashing the order of dismissal passed against him by the Patna High Court. Accordingly, -Mr. Rajesh Kumar submits that the case of the present petitioner stands on the same footing. 4. Accordingly, -Mr. Rajesh Kumar submits that the case of the present petitioner stands on the same footing. 4. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service as well as the appellate order, I•- find that both the authorities have considered the evidence and materials on record as well as the enquiry report and then arrived on the findings of facts that the charges against the petitioner were fully proved. 5. From perusal of the order passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Dhurendra Rai, which has been annexed as Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit, it appears that in that case the charges against the delinquent could not be established during the departmental enquiry, whereas in the present case, the facts are quite different. In this case the charges were found to be established and proved during the departmental enquiry. The evidence led in both the cases was different. Therefore, the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Dhurendra Rai cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. 6. So far as the allegation that the petitioner entered into a quarrel and used abusive language with shopkeepers Vijay Tiwari and Vikash Agarwal is concerned, learned counsel (sic) that they gave in writing to the Officer-in-Charge, Railway Police Station, Daltonganj that they had no dispute with the petitioner and on the alleged date of occurrence i. e. on 18.6.1998 no such occurrence as alleged took place and, therefore, in this view of the matter the petitioner's dismissal is liable to be set aside. This argument is devoid of any merit because from perusal of the enquiry report, which has been annexed with the writ petition, it appears that Vijay Tiwari and Vikash Agrawal, two persons, who are said to have issued the letter as contained in Annexure-10 in favour of the petitioner, in fact, had appeared in departmental enquiry as witnesses and they fully supported the charge against the petitioner by specifically stating that this petitioner entered into quarrel with them and used abusive language when price money was demanded from him for the items he purchased from their shops. 7. Thus the letter contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition allegedly sent by post by these two persons, namely, Vijay Tiwari and Vikash Agrawal cannot be relied upon. 8. 7. Thus the letter contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition allegedly sent by post by these two persons, namely, Vijay Tiwari and Vikash Agrawal cannot be relied upon. 8. Since the petitioner was member of disciplined police force, therefore, it was not expected from him to indulge in such activities. By such serious misconduct of a Police personnel a wrong message goes in the society and it tarnishes the image of police force, therefore, such misconduct of a police personnel has to be dealt with appropriately. 9. In my view, the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service was appropriate and proportionate to the charge. 10. Accordingly having found no merit this writ application is dismissed.