Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1305 (JHR)

Ramjee Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2012-09-03

ALOK SINGH

body2012
Order : The petitioner, who is police Inspector, has approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 12.05.2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Annexure-6 to the petition as well as order dated 26.09.2011 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Annexation-8 to the petition, whereby punishment of stoppage of two increments for 6(six) months was imposed on the petitioner with stipulation that it shall be treated as one black mark and thereafter statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case, inter alia, are that Anil Kumar, son of late Mathura Prasad Singh, had applied for issuance of passport. The petitioner was to make inquiries and verification of the address and antecedent of the applicant Anil Kumar in connection with the issuance of Passport. Accordingly, petitioner has verified the temporary address of the applicant as C/o Naresh Rai, Barganda near Sai Baba Mandir, Giridih. However, he has recommended to get verification of his permanent address of village Pura, Post Office Khaddi Lodipur, P.S. Telhada , District Nalanda (Bihar) done by the Bihar police, before issuing the passport. Anil Kumar has lodged a complaint against the petitioner, Police Inspector, stating that for giving verification report in his favour, he has demanded Rs. 8000/- as bribe and out of Rs. 8000/- Rs. 5000/- were paid to the petitioner through Sri Dilip Kumar, who is engaged in the business of helping the people in getting passport. On the complaint, the petitioner was charge sheeted for demanding bribe of Rs. 8000/- and accepting Rs. 5000/- and submitting a wrong verification report against the applicant Anil Kumar for non-payment of complete bribe money. 3. The petitioner has denied the charges. 4. During the enquiry Dilip Kumar had appeared before the Inquiry Officer and has stated that he was present in the house of Anil Kumar, when petitioner had come for verification; petitioner had demanded Rs. 8000/- for favourable verification; Anil Kumar had given Rs. 5000/- to him and in turn he had handed over the said amount of Rs. 5000/-to the petitioner. 5. In the enquiry Anil Kumar, complainant, was not examined nor an opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine Mr. Anil Kumar. 6. 8000/- for favourable verification; Anil Kumar had given Rs. 5000/- to him and in turn he had handed over the said amount of Rs. 5000/-to the petitioner. 5. In the enquiry Anil Kumar, complainant, was not examined nor an opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine Mr. Anil Kumar. 6. Inquiry Officer has found that charges stand proved against the petitioner and there upon the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Inspector General of Police. Consequently, the petitioner has filed present writ petition assailing both the orders. 7. Mr. Dr. S.N. Pathak, Sr. Advocate while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of Police and others, reported in (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 10 as well as in the case of Commissioner of Police Delhi and others Versus Jai Bhagwan, reported in (2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 376, has vehemently argued that non-examination of the complainant during the enquiry has denied the petitioner of his right of cross-examination. Therefore, punishment imposed in the absence of examination of the complainant should be set aside. 8. Perusal of the enquiry report would reveal that Dilip Kumar has stated before the Inquiry Officer that on the date, the petitioner, police Inspector came for verification to the house of Anil Kumar, he was present in the house of Anil Kumar and in his presence petitioner- police Inspector had demanded money for giving verification report in favour of Anil Kumar. Anil Kumar had paid Rs. 5000/-to the petitioner, police Inspector, through Dilip Kumar, whereas in the complaint Anil Kumar has stated that on the date, petitioner came to his house for verification, he had demanded Rs. 8000/- for furnishing verification report in his favour. Anil Kumar has shown his inability to pay such amount. However, later on Rs. 5000/- was got delivered to the petitioner- police Inspector through Dilip Kumar. There is clear contradiction in the allegation made in the complaint as well as in the statement made by Dilip Kumar before the Inquiry Officer. In the complaint the amount is said to have been delivered later on through Dilip Kumar while Dilip Kumar states that on the same day money was given to the petitioner, police Inspector. 9. There is clear contradiction in the allegation made in the complaint as well as in the statement made by Dilip Kumar before the Inquiry Officer. In the complaint the amount is said to have been delivered later on through Dilip Kumar while Dilip Kumar states that on the same day money was given to the petitioner, police Inspector. 9. The most important witness of the present case could have been Anil Kumar, complainant, who was not examined by the Inquiry Officer. Moreover the petitioner has submitted report that permanent address of the applicant should be verified by the Bihar authorities, which otherwise also, he was expected to do so. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer seems to be perverse. Thus, the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Thus, order impugned does not sustain in the eyes of law. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.