Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 632 (JHR)

Vinay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2010-05-20

D.N.PATEL

body2010
ORDER : Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders of punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the respondents upon the petitioner, who was a Constable in the Police Force of the respondents-State, because of several misconducts and therefore, the orders of compulsory retirement are under challenge, which are at Annexure-4 and 5, to the memo of the petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was working as a Constable with the respondents and he was working honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the whole departmental inquiry has been conducted ex-parte and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and hence, the inquiry officer's report, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Secondly, the orders, passed by the respondents of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct and hence, the order of punishment deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry report was never given to the petitioner, prior to imposing of the punishment upon the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in (1995) 6 scc 157 and has submitted that the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that now detailed counter affidavit has been filed and looking to the nature of the charges, which are Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition, there are serious charges against the present petitioner, who was Constable. As on the date of incident i.e. on 16th April, 2006, delinquent was assigned a duty that he was to go with some other police force in a train No. 2817 UP, but, after taking fire arms, he consumed liquor and not gone with the police scout in the aforesaid train and he remained at the Dhanbad Railway Station. Second charge is that he was not available at the Dhanbad Railway Station and third charge is that under influence of liquor at platform No. 7 of Dhanbad Railway Station, he was abusing the co-passengers and thereafter, his rifle etc. Second charge is that he was not available at the Dhanbad Railway Station and third charge is that under influence of liquor at platform No. 7 of Dhanbad Railway Station, he was abusing the co-passengers and thereafter, his rifle etc. was taken away from the petitioner for deposition in the concerned armory and he was sent to medical examination, where he was found having consumed liquor and then charge-sheet was issued. Inquiry officer was appointed. Inquiry was conducted and several opportunities were given to the petitioner to represent his case, but, he never presented before the inquiry officer and ultimately, the inquiry officer, on the basis of the evidence on record submitted report to the effect that the charges levelled against the petitioner, has been proved. The inquiry report is at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition and thereafter, a copy of the inquiry report was also given to the petitioner and again, he was given an opportunity of making his representation for quantum of punishment. Upon receiving this inquiry report, a representation was made by the petitioner about the quantum of punishment etc. and thereafter, punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, after going through all the inquiry reports and proceedings. He was awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 17th July, 2007, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition. It also appears from the facts of the case that there arc earlier misconducts also, which have been narrated in order at Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition. There are as many as eight earlier punishments, inflicted upon the petitioner. All these eight punishments are major in nature and out of these eight major punishments; four are for serious type of charges from 2006 onwards. There are as many as eight earlier punishments, inflicted upon the petitioner. All these eight punishments are major in nature and out of these eight major punishments; four are for serious type of charges from 2006 onwards. Thus, between 2006-07, there are four punishments or major misconducts and one more departmental inquiry bearing No. 23 of 2007 is pending and therefore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that there is no error in the departmental proceedings nor there is an error in inflicting the punishment and the punishment inflicted upon the present petitioner cannot be labelled as grossly disproportionate or shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct, committed by the present petitioner, on the contrary, much lenient view has been taken by giving respondents for imposing punishment of compulsory retirement so that he can get all the retirement benefits like pension, gratuity etc. otherwise, if he would have been dismissed, these retirement benefits would have been forfeited, as per the existing rules, applicable to the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The petitioner was Constable and he was working with the respondents and was assigned the duty at train No. 2817 UP by the Officer-in-Charge of the Government Railway Police Station on 16th April 2006. Thereafter, petitioner took his fire arms from Dhanbad Armory. Thereafter, he consumed liquor and did not go to the duty in train No. 2817 UP, and he remained at railway platform No. 7 of Dhanbad Railway Station. So far as the second charge is concerned, he was not available at Dhanbad Railway Station when other police personnel’s tries to search him out and so far as the third charge is concerned, the petitioner was abusing the co-passengers at Dhanbad Railway Station. His rifle as well as cartridges was taken away for deposition in Dhanbad armory and he was sent to medical examination, where he was found having consumed liquor. These are the three charges, as per Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition. His rifle as well as cartridges was taken away for deposition in Dhanbad armory and he was sent to medical examination, where he was found having consumed liquor. These are the three charges, as per Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition. (ii) It appears that thereafter, inquiry officer was appointed for conducting the inquiry and on several occasions, opportunities were given to the petitioner to represent his case, but, delinquent never presented himself before the inquiry officer and ultimately, the inquiry officer has given the inquiry report on the basis of the evidences on record and the charges levelled against the petitioner having found proved. Looking to the inquiry report at Annexure-2, it cannot be said that the report of the inquiry officer is based upon no evidence, on the contrary, there are sufficient evidences against the present petitioner and the charges levelled against the present petitioner have been proved and therefore, no error has been committed by the inquiry officer, in method of holding inquiry nor any error has been committed in coming to conclusion that charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. (iii) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this inquiry report was never given to the petitioner prior to the imposition of the punishment. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that he has already given explanation vide letter dated 17th August, 2007 about the quantum of punishment before the disciplinary authority. Clarification of the petitioner was received on 17th August, 2007, as reflected from the order at Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition. Thus, it appears that the inquiry report was given to the petitioner and he has represented also before the disciplinary authority and looking to the order, passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Railway Police dated 27th August, 2007, it appears that he has considered the inquiry report and the explanation of the present petitioner and thereafter, he inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. Thus, there is no error in the procedure of imposing punishment upon the petitioner. Thus, there is no error in the procedure of imposing punishment upon the petitioner. (iv) So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, looking to the nature of the misconduct committed by the present petitioner and also looking to the fact that the petitioner is a police personnel, quantum of punishment inflicted upon the present petitioner cannot be labelled as grossly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. The petitioner consumed liquor and could not attend the duty in train No. 2817 UP and he remained at railway platform No. 7 of Dhanbad Railway Station. Moreover, he abused the co-passengers on the railway platform. Even his rifle and cartridges were taken away from him for deposition in Dhanbad Armory and he was immediately sent to the medical examination, where he was found having consumed liquor. Even previously, there are as many as eight major punishments inflicted upon the present petitioner and from 2006 onwards, there are four major punishments. Thus, approximately in last one year, there are as many as four major punishments inflicted upon the present petitioner. In these set of circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the punishment and to consider the quantum of punishment and in no circumstances, this punishment can be labelled as grossly disproportionate or shockingly disproportionate. There is no error in the impugned order in holding departmental inquiry and in imposing punishment upon the petitioner. (v) Learned Counsel for the petitioner is relying upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 157 . Looking to the peculiar case of the present petitioner that there are as many as eight major punishments and the four major punishments are in the last year only, makes the present case different from, the case of the aforesaid reported decision and hence, the benefit of the aforesaid decision cannot be extended to the present petitioner. Those who are working as police, must behave decently especially when they are on duty. They are the protectors of rights and interests of citizens and other public. They own a duty not to consume alcohol when on duty. They own a duty not to abuse public. Breach of duty, by protectors of rights and interests of others, must be viewed seriously. 6. They are the protectors of rights and interests of citizens and other public. They own a duty not to consume alcohol when on duty. They own a duty not to abuse public. Breach of duty, by protectors of rights and interests of others, must be viewed seriously. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition, hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.