Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1128 (JHR)

Rahul Dev Upadhayay v. State of Jharkhand

2014-11-19

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2014
ORDER : Petitioner being aggrieved with the orders dated 29.06.2010 and 14.12.2010 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, has approached this Court. 2. The facts which has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner is that petitioner being a Constable, had been proceeded departmentally for a charge that he had started friendship with the daughter of one Binod Yadav aged about 19 years only in order to create faith upon the family and the said girl so that, he may solemnize marriage with the girl. After knowing this fact, her parents fixed the marriage of their girl Sudha Kumari with other person. The date of marriage was fixed with the intervention of the members of the society on 04.07.2009 in Jagarnath Mandir. When the marriage was about to be solemnized, the petitioner came and started disturbing the process of marriage and thereafter, the marriage could not be solemnized. Hence the petitioner on the basis of this charge had been directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry and recorded the statement of the witnesses, thereafter, the finding has been given that the charge has been found to be proved against the petitioner. After being accepted the same by the disciplinary authority, order of dismissal has been affirmed by the appellate authority. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings given by the Inquiry Officer is altogether different to that of the charge framed against the petitioner, because the finding given by the Inquiry Officer is with respect to solemnizing second marriage which is contrary to the charge as framed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Inquiry Officer is not supposed to be deviated from the charge. The order of dismissal since is based on the basis of the said findings, is not in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner being the member of the said disciplined police force is very serious. Petitioner has misused official position as he has created disturbance in the marriage of said Sudha Kumari due to which the image of police has destroyed in the society. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner being the member of the said disciplined police force is very serious. Petitioner has misused official position as he has created disturbance in the marriage of said Sudha Kumari due to which the image of police has destroyed in the society. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondent-State that the findings given by the Inquiry Officer is not different to the charge leveled against him rather the original charge which has created disturbance and breakdown of marriage of Sudha Kumari with the other person has been found to be proved. In course of inquiry it was found that the petitioner was already married. Disturbing the solemnization of marriage of said Sudha Kumari by the petitioner shows his criminal intention. It has further been submitted that since there is reasoned facts, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappraise the evidence and cannot disturb the facts and finding given by the disciplinary authority. 5. Heard the parties. 6. In the memorandum of charge, it has been leveled that the petitioner had developed his relationship with one Sudha Kumari and the parents of said Sudha Kumari knowing this fact fixed her marriage with other person in their own community. With the intervention of the other people of the society, the date of marriage was fixed on 04.07.2009 and when the marriage was about to be solemnized at Jagarnathpur Mandir, but on the said date petitioner with ulterior motive disturbed the said marriage. The Inquiry Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses has come to a specific finding and found the charge leveled against the petitioner to be true. In course of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner was already married. Accepting the finding given by the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal. 7. The Inquiry Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses has come to a specific finding and found the charge leveled against the petitioner to be true. In course of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner was already married. Accepting the finding given by the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal. 7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Inquiry Officer or disciplinary authority cannot pass the order deviating from the charge, is concerned, after perusing the memorandum of charge and when it is compared with the findings given by the Inquiry Officer, it is apparent that the finding given by the Inquiry Officer is not in deviation with the charge, rather the charge has been found to be proved. Apart from that Enquiry Officer during the course of inquiry found that petitioner has solemnized second marriage during the existence of first marriage. Thus, Enquiry Officer after coming to know about the second marriage has recorded the same, and thereafter arrived at the finding, on the basis of memorandum of charge and also taking in mind the conduct of the petitioner. 8. Since conduct of the petitioner being a member of disciplined police force is not good as he in spite of live of first wife has fallen in love with a girl who is half in age than the petitioner. Thus, I find no support in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry conducted by the Conducting Officer and the findings are in deviation with the memorandum of charge. 9. However, in the proceeding furnished by the disciplinary authority, the specific finding has been given with respect to proving of the charge by the Enquiry Officer. The appellate authority has also thereafter affirmed the order of dismissal keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner being the member of disciplined force cannot be supposed to act in this way, which creates a bad image in the society. 10. On perusal of the orders, I find that there is a concurrent finding in the orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. 10. On perusal of the orders, I find that there is a concurrent finding in the orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappraise the evidence and cannot disturb the facts and finding given by the disciplinary authority as has been held by the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at para 4 as follows: “…….It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed.” 11. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. 12. Hence, the writ petition, being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.