Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 649 (JHR)

Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-04-26

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court: The petitioner has prayed (i) for quashing the order dated 14.2.2002 passed by the Director General -cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (respondent No.2), (ii) for quashing the order dated 27.2.2001 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Headquarters) Jharkhand (respondent No.3) and (iii) for quashing the order dated 17.4.2001 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pakur (respondent No.4) whereby he has awarded punishment of discharge of the petitioner from service. 2. The short fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 28.11.1979. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Havildar w.e.f. 1.9.1997. The petitioner was transferred and posted in the District Police Force, Pakur in the month of May, 1998. While he was posted at Pakur, the petitioner was put under suspension by order dated 30.10.1999 and was departmentally proceeded against on the charges framed on the basis of the complaint made by another Havildar Matiur Rahman. 3. The allegation imputed against the petitioner, in brief, was that while the other Havildar namely Rama Pukar Singh and Matiur Rahman were helping Rama Kant Singh who was in the state of intoxication, the petitioner intervened and assaulted Havildar Matiur Rahman by giving two slaps and also abused him. He also chased Matiur Rahman after reaching the office and assaulted him with a chair. The petitioner was favouring his caste man Havildar Rama Kant Singh and tried to create disturbance on caste line and also put impediment in discharge of duty of the other Police personnel. The petitioner also humiliated Sergent on duty and the Day Officer. 4. The articles of charges to that respect were framed and served to the petitioner with a memorandum and opportunity was given to him to defend. 5. The petitioner filed his explanation denying the charges. 6. In the departmental proceeding, evidences were led and the witnesses were examined. After conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. 7. The disciplinary authority also concurred with the Enquiry Officer and found the petitioner guilty of all the charges and awarded punishment of discharge from the service. 8. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. 9. The petitioner, thereafter, filed revision before the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police. His revision was also dismissed. 10. 8. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. 9. The petitioner, thereafter, filed revision before the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police. His revision was also dismissed. 10. The petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority in this writ petition mainly on the following grounds :- (I) That the charges were vague and unspecific and the petitioner could not effectively file his reply to the charges and was seriously prejudiced. (II) That the Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the prescribed rule. Proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. Copies of the relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner. (III) That the Enquiry Officer relied on inadmissible evidences and arbitrarily found and held the petitioner guilty of the charges. The order of the disciplinary authority based on such arbitrary enquiry report is improper and unjustified. (IV) The appellate and revisional authority failed to take into consideration the said legal aspects. The order passed by them are also illegal and unsustainable. (V) That the copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner and he could not get opportunity to file representation against the enquiry report. (VI) That there has been serous violation of principle of natural justice and the impugned order of punishment is vitiated and unsustainable. 11. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by controverting the said grounds and contentions. It has been submitted that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to adduce evidences and also to cross-examine the witnesses, but he refused to cross-examine the witnesses and endorsed the same in writing with signature in the bottom of the statement of witnesses. The petitioner was also given copy of the evidences which he acknowledged in writing and put his signature. The principle of natural justice has been fully complied with and each and every material was given to him. The petitioner never before raised any grievance that any paper including the enquiry report was not supplied to him. Learned enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority thoroughly discussed and considered the facts, materials and evidences on record and held the petitioner guilty on that basis. Taking sympathetic view in the light of the petitioner's earlier services, harsh punishment of dismissal was not awarded. Learned enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority thoroughly discussed and considered the facts, materials and evidences on record and held the petitioner guilty on that basis. Taking sympathetic view in the light of the petitioner's earlier services, harsh punishment of dismissal was not awarded. The disciplinary authority awarded punishment of discharge from service in order to maintain discipline in the Police Force. The charges against the petitioner were very serious. He not only assaulted the co-Havildar, he also violated the norms of the discipline of the Police force by humiliating the Sergent Major in his chamber. The entire proceedings were held properly and in accordance with law and there was no illegality or arbitrariness, as has been alleged by the petitioner. 12. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority are violative of the provisions of law and the principle of natural justice and are not sustainable. The petitioner was proceeded against on the vague charges without giving him any description of the charges. The language of the charge was such that the same cannot be properly understood by a Havildar. It was stated that the petitioner had abused the co-Havildar, but the language used by him has not been brought on record. That vagueness seriously prejudiced the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel referred and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India & Ors. [reported in (1995) 6 SCC 157 ] and submitted that if a member of the Police Force is dismissed on the charge of abusing his superior but the nature of abusive language is not stated, the punishment of dismissal is harsh and disproportionate. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that though the findings of the superior authority are not normally interfered with, but in this case it requires interference, as the order is not supported by any legal evidence and is perverse. Learned counsel, in support of his submission, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. [reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 ]. 15. Learned counsel lastly urged that the order of discharge is also vitiated on account of non-service of the enquiry report. Learned counsel, in support of his submission, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. [reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 ]. 15. Learned counsel lastly urged that the order of discharge is also vitiated on account of non-service of the enquiry report. Copy of the report of Enquiry Officer was not supplied to the petitioner and he could not get opportunity to file his representation. The order is vitiated and unsustainable. Learned counsel placed his reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. [reported in (1993)4 SCC 727 ]. 16. Replying to the said contentions and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the decisions in Ram Kishan, Kuldeep Singh and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) have been rendered on entirely different facts. In the instant case there is no vagueness in the charge. The petitioner has been given full opportunity to defend himself. He was also given proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and all the documents were supplied to him and at no stage earlier he ever complained any prejudice caused to him due to non-service of a copy of the enquiry report. There was nothing surprising for the petitioner on record. The punishment of removal has been awarded to maintain discipline of the Police force. The petitioner being a member of the disciplined Police Force has caused irreparable damage to the Force by his unbecoming behaviour. In spite of such serious charges of indiscipline, the petitioner was not given punishment of dismissal and the quantum of punishment was sympathetically considered and reduced to his discharge from the service. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions as well as the facts and materials on record. I have also perused the relevant documents on record. Annexure-2 is the memorandum of charges. On going through Annexure-2, I find that the charge is in plane language and in clear terms. 18. On going through the impugned orders I find that the disciplinary authority has thoroughly discussed the facts and materials on record and has found the charges proved against the petitioner. 19. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have concurred with the said conclusion of the disciplinary authority. 20. 18. On going through the impugned orders I find that the disciplinary authority has thoroughly discussed the facts and materials on record and has found the charges proved against the petitioner. 19. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have concurred with the said conclusion of the disciplinary authority. 20. The orders passed by the said authorities are thoroughly discussed and well reasoned. I find no infirmity or illegality in the orders. 21. The grounds, on which the said impugned orders have been challenged, have not been substantiated by any material on record. 22. The decisions in Ram Kishan, Kuldeep Singh and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) were rendered on different facts and are not relevant to the facts of the instant case and are of no help to the petitioner. 23. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no ground made out in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned order. 24. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.