Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 442 (JHR)

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

2010-04-09

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
Order Amareshwar' Sahay, J.- The petitioner, who was a constable in the State Police, has been dismissed from service after a departmental proceeding by issue of an order dated 21.9:2002, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Rail Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (vide Annexure-4). The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of punishment has also been dismissed by order dated 14.8.2003 by the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Rail D.I.G. of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide Annexure-5. The petitioner has challenged these two orders in this writ petition. 2. The facts, in short, are that on 19.10.2001, the petitioner was posted at Tatanagar Rail Police Station and he was on duty at Platform Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. It is said that while performing his duties alongwith two other constables namely, Borhan Das and Budhi Tuti, he illegally realized a sum of Rs. 140/- from a passenger namely Bhagwan Das. An F.I.R. was registered against them under Sections 384/34 and 411 IPC on the basis of Fardbeyan of the passenger Bhagwan Das. The petitioner was arrested at the spot and the money illegally realized by him from the passenger was recovered from his possession. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and they were tried by the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Chakradharpur. Simultaneously, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner for the said very charge of illegally, realizing a sum of Rs. 140/- from the aforesaid passenger in discharge of his official duties. The petitioner was put under suspension. In the departmental proceeding, the charges against the petitioner was found to be established and then on the basis of the findings in the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 21.9.2002, contained in Annexure-4 passed an order awarding the punishment for dismissartrom service. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal before the D.I.G., which was also dismissed on 14.8.2003, vide order contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 3 According to the petitioner, the other two constables namely, Borhan Das and Budhi Tuti, who were also similarly charged and were departmentally proceeded but they have been let off by awarding the punishment of reversion to the initial pay scale for five years vide order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereas the petitioner has - been awarded the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. It is submitted that in awarding punishment for the same charge two different standards have been adopted. Further, according to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate. Authority did not take into consideration the fact that in the criminal case the petitioner was acquitted from the same charges by a competent criminal court. It is also submitted that while awarding punishment the mandatory provision of Rule 826 of the Police' Manual has not been taken into consideration. Lastly, it was submitted that the copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner causing prejudice to him and, therefore, the impugned orders passed against him was vitiated. 4. On the other hand, according to the respondents, the charges against the petitioner were not the same and similar to that of the other two constables namely, Borhan Das and Budhi Tuti. It is said that the petitioner was named in the FIR and he was arrested at the spot and the illegal money extorted by him was also recovered from his possession. After his arrest at the spot he was sent to jail, whereas the name of other two constables, i.e. Borhan. Das and Budhi Tuti came to light only during investigation. They were neither named in the FIR nor arrested at the spot nor anything was recovered from their possession. The charges against the petitioner were more serious and grave. Further according to the respondents the copy of the findings of the conducting officer was duly furnished to the petitioner vide memo no. 344 dated 15.7.2002 and he acknowledged the receipt of the same vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The point raised by the petitioner regarding violation of Rule 826 of the Police Manual, which says that the punishment awarded should be in conformity with the gravity of the offence, cannot be accepted. In my view, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is in conformity with the Rule 826 of Police Manual. 5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and after examining and scrutinizing the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority, I find that both the Authorities have considered the evidence and materials on record in detail and, thereafter, on consideration of fact and evidence on record have held that the charges against the petitioner to be established. The findings arrived at by them are based on materials and evidence on record. Only because the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court does not mean that for that reason he was entitled to be exonerated from the departmental proceeding. The findings of fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority cannot be disturbed by this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction unless it is shown that any of such finding is perverse in nature. In the present case, I do not find that any of the findings of any of the aforesaid authorities are perverse in nature. 6. It is settled law that the standard of proof in a criminal case and in a departmental proceeding is quite different. In a criminal case the charge has to be established beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas in a departmental proceeding the same is done on the basis of preponderance of the probabilities. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of "Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida & Others, reported in (2007)10 SCC 335", "Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. vs. Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi, reported in 2002(6) Supreme 274 " and in the case of "Chandra Sekhar Prasad Sinha VS. The State Bank of India & Others, reported in 2010(1) JLJR 724 ". 7. So far as the question of adopting two different standard in awarding punishment as alleged by the petitioner is concerned, as already noticed above that the charge against the petitioner was not the same as that of other two constables namely Borhan Das and Budhi Tuti. The petitioner was named in the FIR by the informant and he was identified by him at the spot, as a person who realized money from him and the money so realized was also recovered from the possession of the petitioner, whereas those facts were not there so far as the other two constables are concerned. Their names appeared in course of investigation. The charge against the petitioner was more serious and grave than that of the other two aforesaid constables. The petitioner being a member of disciplined force was required to maintain highest degree of honesty, integrity and sincerity, whereas he being a member of disciplined police force was found to be involved in harassing the passenger and illegally extracting money from the informant. The petitioner being a member of disciplined force was required to maintain highest degree of honesty, integrity and sincerity, whereas he being a member of disciplined police force was found to be involved in harassing the passenger and illegally extracting money from the informant. Therefore, in such view of the matter if any lenient view is taken, the same would convey a very wrong message in the society, as well as amongst the members of the police force. Such matter has to be dealt with in stringent manner and, therefore, in my view, the authorities concerned have not committed any error in awarding punishment of dismissal to the petitioner. 8. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.