Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 447 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-09

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority whereby a punishment of reverting him to his original pay-scale for a period of three years, equivalent to reduction in grade, has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the impugned order of his punishment was rejected. 3. The petitioner was a constable in the Government Railway Police (G.R.P.) and was posted at the G.R.P., Tatanagar on and from 5.2.1997. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.6.2002 on the charge that he ~ad illegally broken open the lock of the railway quarter No. 701/1 and had forcibly entered into the same even though the said quarter was allotted to one P.K. Das, a railway employee. 4. In response to the memo of charge, the petitioner had submitted his explanations taking a stand that the allottee, namely, P.K. Das had inducted him as tenant in the said quarter and had received an advance sum of Rs.10,000/from the petitioner. Not being satisfied with the explanations, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. As it appears from the facts, the petitioner was given opportunity to participate in the departmental proceeding and he had availed the opportunity. 5. It appears that in the departmental proceeding, the complainant-P.K. Das was examined and he was also cross-examined by the petitioner. Besides him, no other witness was examined. 6. The Enquiry Officer, placing reliance on the evidence of the complainant-P.K. Das, and obtaining support from the statements of Ram Vinay Singh, occupant of an adjacent quarter, which was recorded in course of the preliminary enquiry, had recorded his finding that the charge against the petitioner is true. 7. On the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and agreeing with the same, the Disciplinary Authority recorded the impugned order of punishment against the petitioner. 8. 7. On the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and agreeing with the same, the Disciplinary Authority recorded the impugned order of punishment against the petitioner. 8. Counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order of punishment basically on the ground that the punishment as imposed, is a major punishment as declared in Rule 824 of the Jharkhand Police Manual and before proceeding to inflict a major punishment, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to serve a second show cause notice alongwith a copy of the enquiry report to enable the petitioner to submit his explanations as to why the proposed major punishment should not be imposed on him. This having not been done in the case of the petitioner, the impugned order of punishment is not only in violation of the stipulated mandatory Rules as envisaged in the Jharkhand Police Manual but is also against the principles of natural justice. 9. Counsel for the Respondent-State submits that as per the enquiry report, it is stated that the petitioner was given adequate reasonable opportunity to submit his defence and the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is based upon the evidence which available on record. Learned counsel for the Respondent though, would insist by reading out the contents of para-13 of the counter affidavit that in course of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was not only given adequate opportunity to defend his case, but he was also given the copies of all the relevant documents, but he does not deny the petitioner's contention that after concluding the enquiry and before proceeding to inflict a major punishment, the petitioner was not served with a copy of the enquiry report, nor was any opportunity given to her by way of a second show cause notice to explain why the proposed major punishment should not be inflicted against him. 10. Upon reading the Rule 824 alongwith the Rule 828 of the Jharknand Police Manual, it does appear that reduction in rank is a major punishment. In para-10 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have declared that the punishment order is of reduction in rank relegating the petitioner to his initial pay-scale for three years, which according to them, was correct and within the law. 11. In para-10 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have declared that the punishment order is of reduction in rank relegating the petitioner to his initial pay-scale for three years, which according to them, was correct and within the law. 11. In view of such admission that punishment imposed on the petitioner is a major punishment, as explained in Rule 824 and Rule 828 of the Police Manual and in view of the fact that the mandatory requirement of supplying a copy of the enquiry report alongwith the second show cause notice, has not been done, the impugned order of punishment has to be declared as unsustainable in law. As such, the impugned order of punishment as also the order of the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to serve a copy of the enquiry report alongwith adequate opportunity to the petitioner to enable him to explain as to why major punishment as proposed, should not be inflicted on him. The Disciplinary Authority upon receiving the petitioner's explanation, shall take appropriate decision on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, within a period of three months from the date of this order. 12. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the Respondents.