Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 381 (PAT)

Wakil Prasad Basu v. State Of Bihar

2009-03-05

NAVIN SINHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner who is an A.S.I. of Police, was served with memo of charges dated 22.5.2001. The charge was that in the month of March, 2001, he did not dispose any of the eight cases with regard of Phulkaha Police Station. He has, thus, displayed laxity and negligence in investigation of cases. 3. The petitioner filed his show cause. In the show cause also he did not deny the charge but sought to explain it for unavoidable reasons allegedly of his mothers death. The enquiry report dated 15.9.2001 came to be submitted. The Inquiry Officer returned the findings of guilt. He, however, observed that the case of the petitioner may be considered sympathetically in view of his claim for having proceeded on his mothers death. 4. Two significant facts emerge. First is that the petitioner has accepted the charge and seeks to give explanation. According to the explanation, he proceeded on leave on 23.3.2001, just seven days prior to the expiry of the month during which period he disposed none of the cases. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer with the order of punishment dated 14.10.2001 stopping the increments for a period of six months equivalent to one black mark. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not disbelieve the story of the petitioner with regard to his absence on account of his mothers death affecting disposal of the cases. No second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority before issuance of the order of punishment. 6. In A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court 32 (Channabasappa Basappa Happali Vs. The State of Mysore), the appellant, a Police Constable proceeded on leave for a month. He applied for extension of leave for a month. This was refused. He made a second application for extension of leave but this was also not granted. He then undertook a fast at a temple and wrote letters to his superior Officer. Charges were framed of serious misconduct and indiscipline, when he remained absent from duty and wrote to his superior officer to go on fast. In the enquiry he admitted the charge against him, but, sought to explain that he had been on leave for one month. He had then applied for extension of leave by another one month. Charges were framed of serious misconduct and indiscipline, when he remained absent from duty and wrote to his superior officer to go on fast. In the enquiry he admitted the charge against him, but, sought to explain that he had been on leave for one month. He had then applied for extension of leave by another one month. He thought that his leave may be extended. He was disturbed by the injustice done to him and, therefore, with a view to improve the functioning of the Police force undertook a fast. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner admitted all relevant facts on which a decision could be given against him and, therefore, it could not be alleged that the enquiry was in breach of any principles of natural justice as at an enquiry facts have to be proved and the person proceeded against must have an opportunity to cross-examine and give his own version and explanation of the charge and defence. That the charge was two fold. He had stayed beyond sanctioned leave and went on fast as a demonstration. These facts were admitted by him. He sought to give an explanation with regard to the same, which is futile. On the whole, the admission was of guilt. The Apex Court, therefore, held that in view of the admission of guilt, the order of punishment did not require any interference and nothing was required to be proved. 7. In (2008) 5 SCC 569 (Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. & Ors. Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakar Hari Babu), the delinquent was proceeded with in a departmental proceeding of unauthorized absence. He admitted unauthorized absence but sought to explain it. The Supreme Court held that in terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, charges having been admitted were not required to be proved. 8. On the facts of the present case, the petitioner admitted the lapse on his part in non-completion of the investigation. Even if his explanation is taken into account as submitted before the Inquiry Officer, he allegedly proceeded on leave only seven days prior to expiry of the month. The Inquiry Officer did not return any positive finding of his defence. The disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the Inquiry Officer of the guilt and imposed the punishment. 9. Even if his explanation is taken into account as submitted before the Inquiry Officer, he allegedly proceeded on leave only seven days prior to expiry of the month. The Inquiry Officer did not return any positive finding of his defence. The disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the Inquiry Officer of the guilt and imposed the punishment. 9. The charges having been admitted by the petitioner, for reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no merit in this writ application to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.10.2001. 10. The application stands dismissed.