Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1285 (JHR)

Kailesh Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-27

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Challenging order dated 30.06.2011 and appellate order dated 12.09.2011, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the year, 1995. On 13.09.2010, the petitioner was suspended and a charge-memo dated 28.09.2010 was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that he did not show interest in Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 135 of 2010 dated 27.07.2010 registered under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and he did not follow the instructions given by the superior officers. The petitioner submitted his reply on 21.02.2010, denying the charges leveled against him. The penalty order dated 30.06.2011 was passed imposing a punishment of one 'Black Mark'. It was further ordered that for the period of suspension, except the subsistence allowance, nothing would be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 01.08.2011, which was also rejected. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under:- “8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that when the petitioner was posted as Lower Bazar Police Station, Ranchi as the Officer-in-Charge. At that very time, on 27.07.2010, in the morning one Ambika Devi had been murdered by unknown accused persons, in this occurrence a First Information Report was lodged vide Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 135/10 dated 27.07.2010 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner was made the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case. But, inspite of the direction made by the higher police officials to detect the name of accused persons, he did not do in this regard, even he did not intimate with regard to action taken for the same to his superior officers. The then Director General of Police, Jharkhand had visited the place of occurrence and directed to detect the case at the earliest. The then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi issued progress report in this case. In this report he has reported that the petitioner has been found in dereliction of duty, in the investigation of the case. It is stated and submitted that a notice was issued against the petitioner, as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner as well as he was suspended on 13.09.2010. 10. It is stated and submitted that a notice was issued against the petitioner, as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner as well as he was suspended on 13.09.2010. 10. That it is humbly stated and submitted that in the departmental proceeding vide Ranchi District Departmental Proceeding No. 176/10, enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry, the petitioner participated in the enquiry and after completion the same found the petitioner guilty of the charges. 11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the disciplinary officer i.e. the then Senior superintendent of Police, Ranchi after gong through the enquiry report and other materials available on the report found the petitioner guilty of charges. Therefore, vide District Order No. 2985/2011 has passed the punishment order against the petitioner whereby he ordered for entry of one black mark in is service book and also ordered that whatever he got during the suspension period, will not get more than that. 12. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner against the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi. The appellate authority after going through the contention of the petitioner, raised in the memo of appeal, finding no merit on it, has been pleased to reject the appeal of the petitioner, after passing a reasoned order on 12.09.2011.” 5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that at the time when the occurrence took place and a case being Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 135 of 2010 was lodged, the petitioner was investigating as many as 14 other cases of serious nature. The supervision note in the case would indicate that the petitioner had been carrying the investigation in the matter which was approved by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not shown interest in the case. Moreover, a specific plea was taken by the petitioner that there was no written instruction given to the petitioner and oral instructions issued by the Superintendent of Police were carried out by the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not shown interest in the case. Moreover, a specific plea was taken by the petitioner that there was no written instruction given to the petitioner and oral instructions issued by the Superintendent of Police were carried out by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner had not shown any interest for 47 days and it was found that the petitioner did not follow the instructions of the superior officer, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in which the charge leveled against him was found proved and therefore, punishment of one 'Black Mark' was imposed upon the petitioner. 7. On a perusal of the documents, I find that the petitioner has a meritorious career. He has been awarded 45 citations and 10 good service rewards, in a career span of 15 years. The petitioner has specifically stated that he was entrusted with the investigation of 14 other cases of serious nature and he had in fact, carried out the oral instructions of the Superintendent of Police. From the penalty order as well as the appellate order, I find that the meritorious service of the petitioner, which would have been a mitigating circumstances, has not been considered by the departmental authorities. Rule 824 of the Jharkhand Police Manual prescribes a punishment of censor also. 8. Rule 824 of the Jharkhand Police Manual is extracted below:- 824. Description of departmental punishment. The following punishments which are sanctioned under Section 7 of Act V of 1861 may be inflicted departmentally on a police officer of and below the rank of Inspector:- (a) Dismissal, (b) Removal, (c) Compulsory retirement, (d) Reduction in rank, (e) Forfeiture of last increment(s) or future increment(s), (f) Black mark or marks, (g) Censure, (h) Confinement to quarters for a period not exceeding 15 days, (i) Punishment drill, (j) Extra guard or fatigue duty. Provided that the punishments mentioned in clauses (h) and (j) shall be imposed only on members of rank of constables/Havildars and that in Clause (i) shall be imposed only on constables. 9. Provided that the punishments mentioned in clauses (h) and (j) shall be imposed only on members of rank of constables/Havildars and that in Clause (i) shall be imposed only on constables. 9. In view of the facts and the specific plea taken by the petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice, I am of the opinion that since the departmental authorities have failed to consider the plea of the petitioner, particularly his meritorious service, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. The impugned orders dated 30.06.2011 and 12.09.2011 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for awarding a minor punishment.