Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1140 (JHR)

Nilima Tirkey v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has suffered punishment of withholding of increments for six months equivalent to one black mark and withholding of salary for the period of absence from 20.03.2008 to 26.03.2008 and again from 03.04.2008 to 07.04.2008 imposed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police Force-10 (Female Battalion) vide impugned order dated 04.09.2008 bearing Memo No. 2460 (Annexure-3). The Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi has also rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 04.07.2009 bearing Memo No. 1498 (Annexure-5). 3. Charge against the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the said battalion is that she absconded from duty despite direction to report at 'D' Company Camp, Bokaro on 20.03.2008 and reported only after six days on 26.03.2008. Again between 03.04.2008 to 07.04.2008, she absconded without any information. Because of her unauthorized absence, law and order duty also suffered and leads to adverse effect upon the discipline in the Force. 4. Petitioner in the Inquiry Proceeding, conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police-10 (Female Battalion), Ranchi tried to defend herself on the grounds of illness. She stated that the treating doctor had advised her to take bed rest up to 25.03.2008 on examination on 20.03.2008. Prior to that, she had undergone operation on 20.12.2007 at National Hospital, Purulia Road, Ranchi. Thereafter, she submitted joining on 26.03.2008. In respect of second period of absence between 03.04.2008 to 07.04.2008, she has again sought to defend herself on the ground of ill-health stating she became almost incapacitated and was attended by the female members of the family. 5. The prosecution witnesses namely, Shiv Narayan Singh, Kavindra Nath Singh and Jairam Sharma who are Inspector and Sub Inspectors in the said battalion, deposed that the petitioner was in habit of leaving and coming back to the duty at her will and she had never sought permission for undertaking medical treatment or given intimation for her absence. Having found the explanation of the petitioner unsatisfactory and the charges established upon material witnesses produced by the prosecution, the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty vide Annexure-2 dated 27.08.2008. 6. Having found the explanation of the petitioner unsatisfactory and the charges established upon material witnesses produced by the prosecution, the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty vide Annexure-2 dated 27.08.2008. 6. This has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that in spite of genuine reasons for such an absence of only eleven days, major punishment has been imposed i.e. withholding of increments for six months equivalent to a black mark, which would have effect on the entire career of the petitioner and would act as a stigma on her. Referring to Rule-843 of Police Manual, it is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority was well within his power to accept the explanation for absence and convert the period of absence in leave which is admissible to the petitioner. It is submitted that the copies of the Inquiry Report were also not furnished as per statement at para-12 of the writ petition, though the punishment imposed is major. 7. This statement however stands denied by the respondents through their counter affidavit specifically at para-11 where they say that all relevant documents were served upon her including copy of the findings. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned punishment is disproportionate and should be interfered with. 9. Counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that all required procedures and principles of natural justice have been followed in the inquiry before imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority as the charges of unauthorized absence have been proved against her. It is submitted that the petitioner's conduct has suffered the law and order duty and she on more than one occasion, has absconded without any intimation. Such conduct in the Police Force therefore is not condonable and has adequately been dealt with. It is submitted that the punishment of withholding of increments for six months only will not have any effect on future pay revision of the petitioner. Therefore, it does not require any interference. 10. I have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. It is true that the petitioner left the duty without prior intimation, though she claims to have suffered some illness. Explanation for illness however has not been accepted by the respondents, as on more than one occasion, she was found to have left her place of duty. It is true that the petitioner left the duty without prior intimation, though she claims to have suffered some illness. Explanation for illness however has not been accepted by the respondents, as on more than one occasion, she was found to have left her place of duty. The impugned order however does not show that she was habitual absconder from before in her service. Absence is of 6+5 days only. If the petitioner has been able to show medical reasons for her absence, the Disciplinary Authority could have accorded objective consideration on her explanation. It is also evident that for the absence of eleven days, major punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner. Though, the findings of guilty need not be disturbed as the proceeding do not suffer from any irregularity or perversity, but so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, it would be appropriate that reconsideration be accorded to the plea of the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, as Rule 843 of Police Manual also permits such consideration of explanation in cases of unauthorized absence duly explained. It is also evident that the impugned punishment even though withholding of increments for six months only, is a major punishment which may put stigma on her career. 11. Keeping all these facts into account, it is felt appropriate that the Disciplinary Authority takes a fresh decision, so far as the quantum of punishment on the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Petition disposed of.