Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 278 (JHR)

Ram Rekha Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2009-02-19

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2009
Order In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari commanding upon the concerned respondents for quashing Koderma District order No. 780/2003 dated 9.12.2003 and Koderma District Order No. 803/2003 dated 16.12.2003 whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 5 partly modified the order vide Koderma District Order No. 780/2003 dated 9.12.2003 and again ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the salary of the petitioner in 25 equal installments without following due process of law. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to revoke the orders dated 9.12.2003 and 16.12.2003. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is as to whether the action of the respondent in passing the impugned orders dated 9.12.2003 and 16.12.2003 was illegal and without jurisdiction and as to whether it was in total non-compliance of the well settled cardinal principles of natural justice. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the same cause of action the respondent cannot award double punishment. 3. In the instant case in the impugned order the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- in 25 equal installments from the salary of the petitioner was passed based on order dated 9.12.2003 followed by order dated 16.12.2003 by the S.P., Koderma. 4. The counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was an arrogant police officer who did not discharge his duties legally as an Investigating Officer of Tillaiya P .S. Case No. 405 of 2001 and acted arbitrarily. It has also been submitted that a departmental proceeding vide No. 8 of 2002 was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding the allegation made by the petitioner against the then Officer-in-charge of Tillaiya Police Station was not found to be true and as per the report and the enquiry it was found that Anil Singh was not at fault in Case No. 405 of 2001. It has also been submitted that the order dated 9.12.2003 followed by order dated 16.12.2003 was passed by respondent No.5 as per the direction of National Human Rights Commission in Case No. 1118/341 2001-02 on the petition of one Smt. Punam Devi, wife of Anil Singh. The petitioner was punished by National Human Rights Commission and on their direction recovery of Rs. The petitioner was punished by National Human Rights Commission and on their direction recovery of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered whereas in the departmental proceeding the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case and it was a separate cause of action. It was only in compliance to the order passed by the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand followed by D.I.G. of Police, Human Rights, Jharkhand that a direction was issued to deduct the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the salary of the petitioner in 25 equal installments. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon AIR 1993 S.C. page 1197 and has contended that in absence of any opportunity the order of deduction of Rs. 50.000/- was bad in law. 5. I have considered the rival submission and the arguments of the parties and it will be relevant to clarify that there are two separate proceeding, one is a proceeding which has been initiated against the petitioner at the instance of wife of Anil Singh before the National Human Rights Commission which has considered the matter and has based on a report directed the State Government to impose a punishment by deducting Rs. 50,000/- and the respondent-State after affording opportunity to the petitioner, have accordingly implemented the order. The second limb is with regard to the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner which is a separate matter where ample opportunity has been given and thus the plea of non-compliance of natural justice is misplaced and misconceived for the reason that the report of the National Human Rights Commission and the order passed thereto is based after affording opportunities to the parties and the State is only to give effect to the direction based on the report issued by the National Human Rights Commission which has acted accordingly as per the statutory requirement. 6. Thus, I find no illegality in the matter and accordingly this writ petition, being devoid of any merit is dismissed.