Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 833 (JHR)

Harkhen Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-09-06

R.R.PRASAD

body2011
JUDGMENT R.A. Pasad, J.-While the petitioner was posted as Constable in JAP-6 at Jamshedpur, written complaints were made before the Commandant alleging therein that the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs. 2,500/- from Deo Kumar Singh and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from Gopal Prasad Sinha, both retired persons, on the plea that he will do needful in the matter relating to grant of pension to them but he did not do anything and therefore, on being asked, the petitioner did return a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to Deo Kumar Singh but he did not return the money to ex-Havildar Gopal Prasad Sinha. On receiving such complaint, Commandant JAP-6, Jamshedpur entrusted enquiry to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadan Kumar Srivastava, who after holding enquiry found the allegation to be true. Thereupon, notice was issued to the petitioner on 9.12.2002 to submit his show cause. The show cause submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and hence, a departmental proceeding no. 5 of 2003 was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer/Conducting Officer after holding enquiry did find the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority passed an order, as contained in memo no. 260 dated 11.7.2003 (Annexure-4), whereby the petitioner was made to retire compulsorily. The said order has been challenged to be bad. 2. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer is completely erroneous as both the complainants, namely, ex-Havildar Gopal Prasad Sinha and ex-A.S.I., Deo Kumar Singh during enquiry did not support the allegation of taking money from them, whereas other witness, namely, S.K. Srivastava, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, who held preliminary enquiry is a hearsay witness and as such, it was a case of no evidence. Therefore, the order of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner of compulsory retirement is illegal and is fit to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel further submits that though the High Court is not supposed to interfere with the finding of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but in case of no evidence, it would always be open for the Court to go into the merit of the case and if it is found that the finding recorded is based on no evidence, the order of punishment warrants to be set aside. 4. 4. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others vs. Jai Bhagwan [ (2011)6 SCC 376 ] and also in a case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others [ (2009)2 SCC 570 ]. 5. It has been well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is the matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with the question but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, still the conclusion would be that the charge in question is proved against the respondent. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle and the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, one needs to go into the merit of the case. Admittedly, one Deo Kumar Singh, a retired employee of JAP and also Gopal Prasad Sinha, ex-Havildar by submitting written complaints (Exts.-1 and 2) put allegation that the petitioner took money from them on the plea of doing needful in the matter of grant of pension to them. But the petitioner did not do anything and therefore, on being asked, a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was returned to Deo Kumar Singh but Rs. 5,000/- taken from Gopai Prasad Sinha was never returned. However, the said Deo Kumar Singh in course of departmental enquiry made statement that he had given a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to the petitioner by way of loan and when he asked the delinquent to return the money, he said that the money has been spent for his work related to grant of pension. But when he succeeded in getting pension sanctioned of his own effort, he made an application requesting the authority to impress upon the delinquent to return his money. The evidence given by other witness, namely, Gopal Prasad Singh is somewhat different wherein he made statement that the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs. But when he succeeded in getting pension sanctioned of his own effort, he made an application requesting the authority to impress upon the delinquent to return his money. The evidence given by other witness, namely, Gopal Prasad Singh is somewhat different wherein he made statement that the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the plea that he will get the pension released in his favour but the petitioner did not do anything and hence, when he asked the petitioner to return the money, the petitioner did reply that he would not return the money and wherever he wants to go, he may go and thereupon, he made an application before the Commandant, JAP-6 requesting therein to do needful so that the petitioner may return money to him. In course of cross-examination, both of them have stated that they have nothing to do with the petitioner and that they had put signatures over the applications which had been brought by some unknown person. 7. Thus, it does appear that at least one of them did support the allegation of taking money but as both the witnesses had stated that they have nothing to do with the petitioner and that some unknown persons got their signatures affixed over the application (written complaint Exts.-1 and 2), plea is being taken on behalf of the petitioner that both the complainants never supported the allegation which plea has rightly been not accepted by the enquiry officer, taking into account the evidences adduced in examination-in-chief by the witnesses. Further, it was rightly recorded that it is unthinkable that one would put his signature over the complaint brought by the persons who were unknown according to witnesses. 8. Thus, the reason assigned for accepting the evidence adduced on behalf of the witnesses never seems to be erroneous nor it can be said to be a case of no evidence. 9. Thus, I do not find any substance in the submission that the punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon the petitioner on an enquiry report which was based on no evidence and hence, the impugned order does not warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 10. 9. Thus, I do not find any substance in the submission that the punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon the petitioner on an enquiry report which was based on no evidence and hence, the impugned order does not warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 10. So far the decisions referred to on behalf of the petitioner are concerned, it be recorded that the Court did interfere with the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority on being found the case of no evidence whereas in the facts and circumstances stated above, this case cannot be said to be of no evidence. 11. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence, it is dismissed.