Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 354 (JHR)

Pradumn Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand

2010-03-19

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.12.2001 (Annexure-3), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Palamau (Respondent No.4) and also for quashing the order dated 18.8.2003 (Annexure-6), passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau at Daltonganj (Respondent No.3), whereby the petitioner's services were terminated. 3. From the facts pleaded, it appears that on the charge of his conviction for the offence under Section 323 by a criminal Court, the petitioner being a Constable was proceeded against departmentally and upon the charge being proved, and on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority had recorded the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Against the impugned order of his termination, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority but the Appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 4. The grounds on which the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders are that the Respondents-authorities have committed serious impropriety in passing the impugned orders of dismissal without considering the fact that in the departmental enquiry, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of his conviction by the trial court, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court and on the basis of the statements of the informant/complainant, permission was granted to compound the offence and consequently, the petitioner was acquitted from the charge after setting aside the earlier order of his conviction. Learned counsel submits that such being the facts, the petitioner is certainly entitled under the provisions of Rule 848 of the Police Manual, to have the benefit of reconsideration of the order of dismissal passed against him and the Disciplinary Authority is accordingly, obliged to reconsider the petitioner's case in the light of the acquittal secured by him in the criminal proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State on the other hand argues that the petitioner had availed adequate and reasonable opportunity in the departmental proceeding to submit his defence and the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is based upon the proved fact of the petitioner's conviction in the criminal proceeding. The petitioner cannot therefore, claim that he has not been given any reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petitioner cannot therefore, claim that he has not been given any reasonable opportunity of hearing. As regards the acquittal, which the petitioner has secured in the criminal proceedings, learned counsel would want to explain that such acquittal being based upon a compromise effected with the complainant/opposite party, the same cannot be said to be an honourable acquittal and the fact even otherwise, remains that the offence was proved against the petitioner, although it is a different matter that the aggrieved party did not chose to pursue with the case for securing punishment against the petitioner. 6. As it appears from the facts of the case, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated only on the fact that he was convicted of an offence under the Indian Penal Code by a criminal court. In the Appeal preferred by him against the judgment of his conviction, the petitioner had secured his acquittal and the earlier order of his conviction was set aside. It also appears that even before the order of acquittal by, the Appellate Court could be passed, the impugned orders of the petitioner's dismissal and the order of rejection of his appeal against the order of his dismissal came to be passed and as such, neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority had any occasion to consider the fact that the petitioner had secured his acquittal from the charge in the criminal proceedings. 7. Rule 848 of the Police Manual relates to proceedings in case of discharge and lays down that when an Officer is prosecuted before a Court, but he is discharged for want of evidence, it is within the Superintendent's discretion to institute a departmental proceedings or not. 8. In the present case, as it appears, the discretion was exercised by the Superintendent of Police for initiating the departmental proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's conviction by the criminal court. The provisions of Rule 848 of the Police Manual, therefore, irrelevant in the facts of the petitioner's case. 9. 8. In the present case, as it appears, the discretion was exercised by the Superintendent of Police for initiating the departmental proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner's conviction by the criminal court. The provisions of Rule 848 of the Police Manual, therefore, irrelevant in the facts of the petitioner's case. 9. However, considering the fact that the charge on which the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally, was his conviction in the criminal proceeding, and in due course, has secured his acquittal from the Appellate Court in the criminal proceedings, the petitioner may file a fresh representation before his Disciplinary Authority annexing therewith a copy of the judgment passed by the Appellate Court and upon receipt of such representation, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance- with law by way of reconsideration of the earlier order of the petitioner's dismissal. Such decision on the petitioner's representation shall be taken by the concerned Disciplinary Authority within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation and the same shall be effectively communicated to the petitioner. 10. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.