Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 584 (JHR)

Ramji Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-05-05

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Judgment The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.8.2012 passed in W.P.(S)No. 417 of 2011, by which the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed and learned Single Judge declined to set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal. 2. The appellant- Ramji Singh, who was the Police Constable, was suspended by letter dated 10.2.2004 w.e.f. 5.2.2004 on the criminal charges that he fired one round from his own rifle and abused one Sub-Inspector Shivlal Tudu in drunken state and an FIR in Daltonganj PS Case No. 7 of 2004 has been lodged against the appellant under Sections 307, 353, 504,506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant was finally acquitted by the judgment dated 13.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Daltonganj vide Sessions Trial No.40 of 2005. 3. For the similar charges, a Departmental Proceeding no. 50 of 2004 was initiated against the appellant. The grievance of the appellant is that without affording sufficient opportunity and without properly conducting the departmental proceeding the appellant was terminated from services vide order dated 10.4.2006 bearing memo no.368/Confidential. The appellant filed appeal against the order passed in the departmental proceeding and the appellate authority-DIG of Police (Rail), Jharkhand upheld the order of dismissal by order dated 7.9.2009 holding that the charges leveled against the appellant is fully proved. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of termination from services and also the rejection of the appeal, the appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 417 of 2011 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 28.8.2012, whereby the learned Single Judge held that the Sessions case ended in acquittal, since none of the prosecution witnesses had appeared before the Sessions Court and simply because the appellant was acquitted by the criminal court is not a ground to set aside the order of dismissal. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that prior to the passing of the impugned order, the appellant was awarded eight penalties on different occasions and that the appellant is not fit to be reinstated in the disciplinary force. 5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said writ petition, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 6. Mr. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that prior to the passing of the impugned order, the appellant was awarded eight penalties on different occasions and that the appellant is not fit to be reinstated in the disciplinary force. 5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said writ petition, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 6. Mr. Praful Jojo, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the order passed by the disciplinary authority, dismissing the appellant from service, affirmed by the appellate authority is unsustainable, since it is a case of no evidence. It was submitted that the appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case and the acquittal of the appellant by the criminal court has not been appreciated in proper perspective by the learned Single Judge. It was further contended that when on the same set of facts criminal case ended in acquittal, as per the judgment rendered in Captain M. Pal Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , the disciplinary authority ought not have imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and the learned Single Judge did not properly appreciate that it is a case of no evidence. 7. We have heard learned JC to the Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand. The learned counsel submitted that mere acquittal of the appellant in criminal case could not be a ground for exonerating the appellant from the disciplinary proceeding. The learned counsel further submitted that there was overwhelming evidence against the appellant in the disciplinary proceeding and having regard to the gravity of the offence, the disciplinary authority rightly passed the order of dismissal of the appellant from service, which was rightly affirmed by the appellate authority. Having regard to the evidence adduced in the disciplinary proceeding and the reasoned order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition and the order warrants no interference. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order and other materials on record. 9. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order and other materials on record. 9. So far the contention of the appellant that in the disciplinary proceeding, it was a case of no evidence, by perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the department has adduced sufficient evidence to bring home the charges against the appellant. The Inspector-Shiv Lal Tudu with whom the appellant alleged to have misbehaved and abused and also fired at him was examined as a witness in the departmental proceeding. Besides him, 4 more witnesses were examined by the department to prove the charges against the appellant. That apart the department has also produced the medical evidence to show that the appellant was in drunken state at the time when he fired on the Inspector-Shiv Lal Tudu on 5.2.2004. The appellant was charged of firing from the Government rifle without there being any order from the higher authority. The charge of firing from the Government rifle has also been proved by producing the ballistic report and also the oral evidence. 10. By a reasoned order dated 10th April, 2006, the disciplinary authority while accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer found that the charges having been proved against the appellant, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. 11. In so far as the contention that the criminal case against the appellant ended in acquittal is concerned, mere acquittal in criminal case will not automatically result in exoneration of the appellant from the charges levelled against him in the disciplinary proceeding. It is a settled proposition that the scope of inquiry in a criminal case is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; whereas in a disciplinary proceedings, the decision depends upon the preponderances of probabilities. In order to ensure discipline amongst the employees, the appellant being a member of disciplined force was expected to maintain high standard of discipline. When the appellant was alleged to have abused the higher authority and also fired upon him, having regard to the gravity of charge the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed punishment of dismissal from service. The punishment imposed on the appellant cannot be said to be unreasonable or harsh or excessive, warranting interference by exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The punishment imposed on the appellant cannot be said to be unreasonable or harsh or excessive, warranting interference by exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. It is pertinent to point out that on earlier occasion also, the appellant was awarded major punishment, at least, on eight occasions and minor punishment on three occasions. 13. As rightly pointed by the learned Single Judge, although the previous act and punishment awarded should not be taken into consideration while considering the present disciplinary proceeding, the facts and circumstances disclosing that the appellant is not suitable in the disciplinary force is to be kept in view. 14. In the facts and circumstance of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.