Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1360 (JHR)

Sanjay Kumar Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-30

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
ORDER : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner, inter-alia, has prayed for quashing the order of dismissal contained in order dated 17.11.2012 from the post of constable (while on probation) issued by the S.P., Gumla, (respondent no. 3) pertaining to dismissal from services. 2. Sans detail facts as disclosed in the writ application in a nutshell is that, the petitioner in pursuance to advertisement no. 1/2010 issued by Police Headquarter, Jharkhand by the office of Deputy General of Police, Jharkhand in a local newspaper, was selected to the post of constable. Before selection the verification and declaration has been made on 23.11.2011 by the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has filled up the form on 15.04.2010 the petitioner has submitted his declaration about his integrity and about his good character on 23.11.2011 in form no. 11. The petitioner has been implicated in Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 106 of 2011 charge sheet was submitted mechanically. The petitioner submitted his written defence statement before the respondent no.3-S.P., Gumla, which was duly forwarded by the Mukhiya, Bero, Ranchi and respondent no. 3 passed the order of dismissal vide order dated 17.11.2012. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal from services the petitioner has submitted an appeal before the appellate authority. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of impugned order of dismissal and non-disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner having no other alternative efficacious remedy invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 6. Per Contra, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 4 controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been inter alia submitted that the respondent no. 3 issued a show cause notice dated 29.03.2012, 06.08.2012 and 08.09.2012 , the petitioner has submitted his show cause reply on 18.09.2012 and the respondent no. 3 has taken action vide order dated 08.09.2012 and the dismissal order has been passed on the concealment of the facts by the petitioners in verification roll in para no. 12 (A) and (B) and not on the merit. The dismissal order has been passed not due to criminal case but due to the concealment of facts. The detailed order has been passed by the respondent no. 12 (A) and (B) and not on the merit. The dismissal order has been passed not due to criminal case but due to the concealment of facts. The detailed order has been passed by the respondent no. 3, Gumla district order dated 17.11.2012 in accordance of the provisions of the Police Manual, Rule 673-C, which reads as under :- “Enlistment orders.-The order of enlistments shall then be entered in the order book, the service book shall be prepared and the verification roll despatched to the Superintendent of the district in which the recruits home is situated. The number and date of despatch shall be noted in the proper place in the service book, and on the return of the roll with a report that the man bears a good character and has made a truthful statement as to his antecedents, the Superintendent shall initial this entry, have the necessary entry made in the service-book and order the verification roll to be filled. If the character of the man is reported to be bad or his statement false, he shall be removed from the force.” The copy of the letter dated 24.12.2013 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 7. Having heard Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anshuman Kumar J.C. to A.G. for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the petitioner has not violated the rule no. 673 of Police Manual vol. 1. The person once appointed in the police he will have to give his declaration of his integrity and good character and on 23.11.2011 in form no. 11 he has submitted his character based on the facts of personal knowledge. So far as the communication of Katkamsandi P.S. case no. 106/2011 is concerned, in which the petitioner is also named as an accused, it was submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the criminal case against him because he resided at Bero, Ranchi and the matter is related to a land disputes with joint family of the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 106/2011. The charge-sheet has been submitted by the police that his name is in the First Information Report. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 106/2011. The charge-sheet has been submitted by the police that his name is in the First Information Report. As per the Police Manual rule 673 C which enshrines only removal from services if false statement submitted by the police personnel in verification of declaration but the said rule never envisages for dismissal which is an extreme punishment to the employees. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment is grossly disproportionate to the charge and also in violation of Rule 673-C of the Police Manual, Vol.-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never concealed any facts nor ever tried to mislead the department on any point. The petitioner has no any pending case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Rule 847 of The Police Manual, which reads as under:- “Form of charge in such cases:-The charge in proceedings under rules 845 and 846 shall be that the accused has been convicted, imprisoned or fined, as the case may be, for the offence concerned. Such proceedings shall not be taken until the appeal against the order of conviction has been heard or the time allowed for appeal has expired.” 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has assiduously countered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by advancing the arguments that as per the Police Manual rule 673-C, the character of the personnel is reported to bad or his statement is false he shall be removed from the force. Moreover, the order passed by the the respondent is not based on the criminal case but on the ground for concealment of the facts and therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is absolutely not tenable. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference by this Court due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements. (I) In the instant case, the petitioner joined in the police department on 16.11.2011 and the date of filing of verification form was 23.11.2011 and the date of institution of Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 106 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011, the petitioner did not know about the institution of case wherein he is named as an accused. (I) In the instant case, the petitioner joined in the police department on 16.11.2011 and the date of filing of verification form was 23.11.2011 and the date of institution of Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 106 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011, the petitioner did not know about the institution of case wherein he is named as an accused. (II) The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sanjeev Kumar at paragraph 8 has been pleased to observe that:- “We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.” According to the petitioner in para 12 of the said judgment Hon'ble Apex Court held that a lenient view should be taken in the matter. 11. As per the contentions of the petitioner that he has not been willfully hiding the truth about his involvement in criminal case nor he is guilty of concealment of facts because the same was not known to him nor it was told to him by any of his family member including father. 12. On cumulative facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements the impugned order dated 17.11.2011 at Annexure-4 to the writ application is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the question of quantum of punishment strictly in accordance with law within a reasonable time preferrably within a period of four months on the receipt of a copy of the order. 13. Hence, with the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.