Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 480 (JHR)

Akhlaque Ahmad Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2016-03-16

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.05.2010 passed by Superintendent of Police, Garhwa and the order dated 15.06.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range, Daltonganj affirming the order of punishment of forfeiting increment for 6 months which is equivalent to one black mark and for direction to respondents for payment of arrears of salary or any other monetary benefits. 2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that while the petitioner continued as a constable, charges were framed against him on 7.06.2009 on the allegations that he misbehaved with officers by using abusive language. A detailed show cause was filed on 17.07.2009 denying all the charges levelled against him. The inquiry officer, after perusing the documents and examining the evidences, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner is partially proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with findings of the inquiry officer has passed the order of forfeiture of 6 months increment of the petitioner which is equivalent to one black mark vide order dated 28.05.2010 and the appellate authority vide order dated 15.06.2011 dismissed the appeal affirmed by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the order of appellate authority, filed a revision petition before the Director-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand annexing all the relevant documents but nothing has been communicated to the petitioner till filing of the writ application. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ applications. In the counter-affidavit, it has been inter-alia submitted that there is no procedural irregularity by the respondent authorities and nor any violation of the principle of natural justice. 4. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ applications. In the counter-affidavit, it has been inter-alia submitted that there is no procedural irregularity by the respondent authorities and nor any violation of the principle of natural justice. 4. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent no.4 wherein it has been inter-alia submitted that Superintendent of Police (N) Special Branch, Jharkhand Ranchi did not agree with the opinion of the conducting officer and relying upon the report of the sub-divisional police officer, Nagar Untari held Balanand Sharma to be guilty of the offence alleged and punishment was inflicted to Balanand Sharma according to which the increment of salary for one year was stopped which is equivalent to two 'Kalank' but there would be no bad effect on the increment in salary in future. 5. Heard Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anshuman Kumar, J.C. to A.G., learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner is vague and perverse and the punishment which has been inflicted on the petitioner is not commensurate with the gravity of charges. Learned senior counsel further submits that no reason has been assigned and the disciplinary authority has inflicted a major punishment i.e. stoppage of 6 months increment which is equivalent to award of black mark which is major punishment as per the Rules 828 and 824 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. Learned senior counsel has referred to Rule 835 of the Jharkhand Police Manual wherein stoppage withholding of increment for 6 months is equivalent to one black mark. Learned senior counsel has further referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 2 SCC 449 [: 2003 (1) JLJR (SC) 114] in the case of State Bank of India & Others Vs. K.P. Narayana Kutty. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the relevant documents on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate a case for interference due to the following facts :- (i) In instant case, the punishment inflicted, does not appear to be excessive or harsh. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the relevant documents on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate a case for interference due to the following facts :- (i) In instant case, the punishment inflicted, does not appear to be excessive or harsh. Moreover, it is settled position of principle of law as has been held by the Apex Court that writ court would not interfere unless punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges or is not commensurate to the alleged misconduct so as to prick the conscience of the Court. (ii) Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of decisions. In this respect, it would be apposite to refer to the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra as reported in (1999) 1 SCC 759 in paragraph 22 held as under :- “............ The High Court should not have substituted its own discretion for that of the authority. What punishment was required to be imposed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a matter which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and did not warrant any interference by the High Court. The entire approach of the High Court has been faulty. The impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained on this ground alone................” 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment dated 28.05.2010 and order dated 15.06.2011 being affirmed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range, Daltonganj do not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.