Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1717 (PAT)

Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-12-19

VIKASH JAIN

body2012
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing Araria District Order No. 693 of 2011 dated 7.08.2011 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Araria by which the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of withholding six months increments equivalent to one black mark, as well as Purnea Range Order No. 249 of 2011 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal, as well as the Enquiry Report dated 20.1.2011. 3. The short facts of the case are that a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in terms of charge sheet issued by the Superintendent of Police, Araria alleging therein that the petitioner had failed to comply with the letter of D.I.G. Range, Bettiah in Memo No. 285 dated 10.4.2008 as well as the reminder letter in Memo No. 530 dated 5.7.2008 requiring the petitioner to send the service book of Police Sub-Inspector, Rabindra Nath Thakur. Owing to non-receipt of the said service book could not be punished and he superannuated on 31.9.2009 thereby getting the benefit of gratuity and pension. 4. The solitary plea of the petitioner is that the letter of D.I.G. Range, Bettiah dated 10.8.2008 as well as the reminder letter dated 5.7.2008 were never brought to his knowledge, non-compliance of which formed the sum and substance of the charge sheet against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Report and order of punishment suffer from perversity and are liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the consistent stand of the petitioner has been that the said two letters were addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Araria but were never brought to his knowledge. It was only after the letter dated 10.4.2008 was issued that the petitioner had joined as reserve S.I., Araria on 16.4.2008 and remained there only up to 12.5.2008 being prior to the issuance of the reminder letter dated 5.7.2008. Even though the petitioner’s stand has been taken note of by the Enquiry Officer, the same has been ignored and nothing to the contrary has come before him. He invites attention to the Enquiry Report to show that the said letter dated 10.4.2008 was not even made an exhibit and even the witness Shiv Sagar Prasad stated that he had not seen the relevant letter. He invites attention to the Enquiry Report to show that the said letter dated 10.4.2008 was not even made an exhibit and even the witness Shiv Sagar Prasad stated that he had not seen the relevant letter. Despite the unopposed categorical stand of the petitioner that the relevant letters dated 10.4.2008 and 5.7.2008 were never brought to his knowledge, the Enquiry Officer opined that the charge against the petitioner stood proved on the ground that another incumbent Sergeant Major Sri Anuranjan Kumar has also been found guilty in respect of the same charge. It is submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are thus based on mere suspicion which, as is well settled, can never take the place of proof. 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the punishment has been imposed on irrelevant consideration as the mere fact that Sri Anuranjan Kumar had been punished by itself could not be a reason to award punishment against the petitioner as well particularly in absence of the fact of the two letters in question having been brought to the petitioner’s knowledge being proved on the basis of evidences at the stage of enquiry. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand strongly opposes the writ petition and submits that the order of punishment does not suffer from any infirmity. It is nobody’s case that the two letters were not received in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Araria or that these were not forwarded to the relevant cell and therefore once the petitioner assumed charge as reserve S.I. on 16.4.2008 he would have come to know of the letter dated 10.4.2008 issued by the D.I.G. Range, Bettiah. It is stated that the Superintendent of Police, Araria enquired the matter and found the petitioner prima facie responsible for non-compliance of the said letter dated 10.4.2008 as the petitioner was posted as reserve S.I. at Araria district police lines from 16.4.2008 to 12.5.2008. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 and placed on record. 8. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, it is apparent that the order of punishment is based on suspicion than on evidence. It is well settled that before punishment can be awarded the charges have to be proved on the strength of evidence. 8. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, it is apparent that the order of punishment is based on suspicion than on evidence. It is well settled that before punishment can be awarded the charges have to be proved on the strength of evidence. In the instant case there is no material or evidence to show that the two letters in question were as a matter of fact brought to the knowledge of the petitioner or that there was any conscious default on his part. It has only been inferred and surmised that the petitioner must have come to know of the letter dated 10.4.2008 after he assumed charge at Araria soon thereafter on 16.4.2008. Moreover, the specific assertion of the petitioner in paragraph 7 in his writ petition that neither the Enquiry Report was supplied to him nor was he given a second show cause before the major penalty of one black mark was awarded thereby contravening the principles of natural justice, had not been refuted in the counter affidavit except for the bald statement that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner by the conducting officer during the course of enquiry. 9. In the above view of the matter, this Court finds that the proceedings against the petitioner are not in accordance with law and suffer from infirmity. Accordingly the Enquiry Report dated 21.1.2011 (Annexure-4) as also the impugned order of punishment as contained in District Order No. 693 of 2011 dated 7.8.2011 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Araria, together with Purnea Range Order No. 249/2011 are hereby quashed. 10. The writ petition stands allowed.