Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 799 (JHR)

Onkar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2010-08-10

R.R.PRASAD

body2010
JUDGMENT This writ application has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9.8.2008 (Annexure 4) whereby disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment reducing the salary of the petitioner to the minimum pay scale in the cadre for three years and also for quashing the order dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure 6) whereby Deputy Inspector General of Police affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Dr.S.N.Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority having found the petitioner guilty of the charge passed the order of punishment whereby petitioner’s salary has been reduced in the lowest pay scale of the cadre which punishment has never been prescribed under Rule 824 of the Police Manual where one of the modes of the punishment is reduction in rank and not reduction in scale and keeping in view this aspect of the matter, Patna High Court in a case of Om Prakash Thakur vs. State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C No.15205 of 2001) quashed the order whereby the petitioner of that case had been inflicted with the same punishment of lowering down of the scale for three years. Thus, it was submitted that order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and also by the appellate authority are fit to be set aside. Counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that reduction in rank as prescribed under Rule 824(d) would always include reduction in time scale which would be evident from Rule 832 of the Police Manual but the Patna High Court while deciding the case, referred to above, failed to take notice of that provision and as such, it cannot be said to be an authority on the point. In the context of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, one may take notice of the Rule 824 and also Rule 832 (a) of the Police Manual in order to set at rest the controversy. In the context of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, one may take notice of the Rule 824 and also Rule 832 (a) of the Police Manual in order to set at rest the controversy. The said Rule is as follows: “ 824 – Description of departmental punishments– The following punishments which are sanctioned under Section7 of Act V of 1861 may be inflicted departmentayona police officer of and below the rank of Inspector:-(a)dismissal (b)removal (c) compulsory retirement (d)reduction in rank (e)forfeiture of last increment(s) or future increment(s) (f) black mark or marks (g)censure (h)confinement to quarters for a period not exceeding 15 days (i) punishment dri (j) extra guard or fatigue duty 832. Order of reduction – (a) Every order reducing an officer to a lower post or to lower stage in his time scale or withholding an increment, shall state the period for which it shall be effective. In cases of exceptionally grave wrong doing in which a punishment less than dismissal or removal is considered adequate, the officer concerned may be retired compulsorily instead of being kept permanently reduced to a lower post as such punishments of permanent nature causes loss of all incentives to future good work. No officer shall be reduced to a lower rank than that to which he was directly recruited.” Thus, if both the rules are read together, there would be one and only conclusion that reduction in rank as stipulated under Rule 824(d) of the Police Manual would also mean reduction in time scale. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 9.8.2008 and 12.1.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority never seem to have suffered from any illegality. Accordingly, this writ application is devoid of any merit and hence, it is dismissed.