Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1172 (JHR)

Md. Kashim v. State of Jharkhand

2013-10-24

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by a punishment imposed vide order dated 21.6.2003 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Region, Bokaro, whereby he has been inflicted with the punishment of reversion to the basic scale of Sub-Inspector for a period of one year. It has also been held that he is not entitled to any full salary for the period of his suspension apart from his subsistence allowance. The appellate order dated 6.5.2004 rejecting the petitioner's appeal, Annexure-2, is also under challenge. 3. The petitioner was proceeded against a departmental proceeding in Departmental Proceeding no. 178 of 2001. The charge nos. 1 and 2 were in relation to involvement in the illegal business of wine and black marketing of coal. Charge no. 3 was in relation to his lapses during the investigation of Chas Muffasil P.S. Case No. 51 of 2001. Charge no. 4 once again was in relation to the lapses in conduct of investigation under Chas Muffasil P.S. Case No. 51 of 2001. Charge no. 5 was also related to the lapses in investigation and furnishing of documents in relation to Ganpati Fuel Company, which was related to the Chas Muffasil P.S.Case no. 51 of 2001. Charge no. 6 was in relation to the allegation that he used to receive fixed monthly illegal gratification in lieu of illegal transportation of coal in Chas Police Station area from one Wheel Briquette Industry. 4. The proceeding was conducted by the conducting officer and the petitioner was found guilty. The recommendation was made by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro for dismissal of the petitioner from service. The disciplinary authority, therefore, asked for show cause on the alleged charges found to have been established against the petitioner vide memo no. 247 dated 22.2.2003. The petitioner furnished his reply, inter alia, stating that for charges 1 and 2 he was proceeded under a separate proceeding no. 89 of 2001. A punishment of withholding of six months increment have already been passed against him; the conducting officer has not given the information of the dates of inquiry; the witnesses were examined in his absence and no evidence was produced in support of allegation no. 6 relating to receipt of monthly illegal gratification for such illegal transportation of coal. A punishment of withholding of six months increment have already been passed against him; the conducting officer has not given the information of the dates of inquiry; the witnesses were examined in his absence and no evidence was produced in support of allegation no. 6 relating to receipt of monthly illegal gratification for such illegal transportation of coal. The disciplinary authority after consideration of his show cause found that the charges 1 and 2 were already proceeded under a separate inquiry for which he has been imposed with a major punishment earlier by the Superintendent of Police vide district order no. 385 of 2002. In respect of the Charge no. 6, he found that no witnesses have been adduced to support the allegation that he used to receive illegal gratification. However, disciplinary authority found that the charge nos. 3, 4 and 5 were established against the petitioner, which are serious in nature in relation to a person, who was an officer in charge. In such circumstances, the impugned order of punishment has been imposed against him reverting him to the basic scale of Sub-Inspector for the period of one year and holding that he would not be entitled to full salary for the period of suspension. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that depositions of the witnesses were taken in absence of the petitioner and that he was not given an opportunity to show cause before the impugned order of punishment was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted by relying upon Annexure5 that he was away from 6.2.2002 to 10.2.2002 for appearing as witness in cases at Munger and Dhanbad. Therefore, the witnesses were examined in his absence without any notice to him. 6. The respondents in their reply have stated relying upon AnnexureB/1 and B/2 that the petitioner was communicated the date of inquiry i.e. 25.1.2002 by the conducting officer vide memo no. 16 dated 23.1.2002. Thereafter he was again communicated of the next date by memo no. 22 dated 29.1.2002, which was on 11.2.2002. It is stated that perusal of AnnexureB/2 also shows that the petitioner as well as witnesses were not present on that date. Thereafter he was asked to give his written statement in response vide AnnexureB/3 dated 14.2.2002. 16 dated 23.1.2002. Thereafter he was again communicated of the next date by memo no. 22 dated 29.1.2002, which was on 11.2.2002. It is stated that perusal of AnnexureB/2 also shows that the petitioner as well as witnesses were not present on that date. Thereafter he was asked to give his written statement in response vide AnnexureB/3 dated 14.2.2002. It is submitted that, therefore, the petitioner has not been able to show that the witnesses were examined while he was away from Bokaro for deposing in Munger and Dhanbad between 6.2.2002 to 10.2.2002. It is further submitted that the petitioner was again given adequate opportunity even before passing of the impugned order as it is evident from Annexure3, the impugned order itself. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. In the earlier part of this order, the relevant charges, for which the petitioner was proceeded against under departmental proceeding no. 178 of 2001, have been indicated. The petitioner was given notice of the date of inquiry by the conducting officer as would appear from AnnexuresB/1 and B/2. Though the petitioner has relied upon Annenxure5 to state that he was away from the headquarter between 6.2.2002 to 10.2.2002, but the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the witnesses were examined by the prosecution between the said dates during his period of absence. As a matter of fact, on perusal of Annexures B/1 and B/2, it appears that the dates, which were given by the conducting officer, were not falling between 6.2.2002 to 10.2.2002. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the witnesses were examined in his absence is not acceptable. The petitioner may have consciously chosen to avoid the departmental proceeding as is also the case of the respondents in their counter affidavit. 8. It appears from the impugned order dated 21.6.2003 that the petitioner was asked to give a reply to the show cause before the order of punishment was passed vide memo no. 247 dated 22.2.2003, which he did and was taken into consideration by disciplinary authority also. The charge nos. 3, 4 and 5 are serious enough for imposing penalty of reduction to the basic scale imposed upon the petitioner. 247 dated 22.2.2003, which he did and was taken into consideration by disciplinary authority also. The charge nos. 3, 4 and 5 are serious enough for imposing penalty of reduction to the basic scale imposed upon the petitioner. Though the Superintendent of Police had recommended for dismissal of the petitioner from service on the basis of the inquiry report but the disciplinary authority, D.I.G. Bokaro, had after consideration of the petitioner's show cause, imposed him with a lesser punishment, which can not be said to be disproportionate or shocking to the conscience of the Court on the misconduct, which have been found to be established against him. This Court does not sit in appeal on the merit of the findings in a disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner was a member of the uniformed police force and the charges were found to be established against him showing serious lapses on his part in discharging his duty. The appellate authority having considered the appeal has also not found any reason to interfere with the order of punishment. 9. Therefore, no ground is made out to interfere with impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.