Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1199 (PAT)

Murlidhar Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-12-05

V.NATH

body2014
V. Nath, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State-respondents. The pleadings are complete and with the consent of the parties, this writ application is disposed of by this judgment and order. 2. The factual exposes’ are that the petitioner, who was a Constable was proceeded against departmentally for the charges mentioned in the chargesheet (Annexure-1) dated 16.09.2011. The enquiry in the proceedings was conducted and after hearing the petitioner and considering the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 21.10.2011 (Annexure-4), whereby the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges. The said enquiry report was considered by the respondent-Superintendent of Police, who after differing with the findings in the enquiry report has passed the order dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure-5) imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment in salary for six months upon the petitioner. The appeal thereafter has been dismissed by order dated 07.04.2012 (Annexure-6) Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed this writ application. 3. The solitary submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-Superintendent of Police before passing the impugned order dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure-5) did not issue notice to the petitioner granting him opportunity of hearing. It has been propounded that once the respondent-Superintendent of Police disagreed with the findings in the enquiry report and proposed to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment, which is a major punishment according to Rule 824 of the Bihar Police Manual, he ought to have granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend the findings in the enquiry report, which were in his favour. 4. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondents. The learned counsel for the State-respondents, however, has failed to point out any averment in the counter affidavit denying the assertion of the petitioner that the impugned order imposing punishment on the petitioner has been passed by the respondent-Superintendent of Police after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State-respondents, however, has maintained that the respondent-Superintendent of Police was not required to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in view of the provision contained in Rule 828 (C) of the Bihar Police Manual. 5. The learned counsel for the State-respondents, however, has maintained that the respondent-Superintendent of Police was not required to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in view of the provision contained in Rule 828 (C) of the Bihar Police Manual. 5. The perusal of the provision contained in Rule 828 (C) of the Bihar Police Manual reflects that the said provision is in two parts: the first part deals with a situation, where no formal enquiry is required to be held by the Superintendent of Police for the proposed punishment of stoppage of increment in salary but even then it envisages the requirement of notice to the delinquent and the consideration of his answer to each charge by the Superintendent of Police being the disciplinary authority. The other part of the said provision deals with a situation, where the enquiry into the charges is directed to be conducted by an Enquiry Officer. The notice to the delinquent and grant of opportunity of hearing has been specifically provided therein. 6. In the present case, however, the fact situation depicts entirely different picture when the respondent-Superintendent of Police directed for an enquiry deputing an Enquiry Officer and thereafter considered the report of the Enquiry Officer which had exonerated the delinquent (petitioner) of all the charges but after recording his disagreement has imposed the punishment of stoppage of six months’ increment upon the petitioner. The order (Annexure-5) does not disclose that any notice was issued to the petitioner or adequate opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner before holding him guilty of the charges and imposing punishment on him. Before overturning the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority should have granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter recorded his findings. If this would have been done, the litigation on this score could have been possibly avoided. The order passed by the appellate authority also does not disclose that this aspect of the matter have been taken into notice while dismissing the appeal. 7. The above-mentioned fact-situation lead to unmistakable conclusion that the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner by the respondents without affording opportunity to him to defend himself against the charges for which he stood exonerated in the enquiry. The impugned orders, therefore, are not sustainable in law. 8. 7. The above-mentioned fact-situation lead to unmistakable conclusion that the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner by the respondents without affording opportunity to him to defend himself against the charges for which he stood exonerated in the enquiry. The impugned orders, therefore, are not sustainable in law. 8. For the aforesaid reasons this Court is inclined to quash the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the respondent-Superintendent of Police and also the order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police in appeal and remit the matter back to the respondent-Superintendent of Police to pass order afresh after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law/rules. 9. The writ application is disposed of with aforesaid directions.