Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 566 (JHR)

Ved Prakash Patwa v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-05

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Per Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing the District Force Order No. 579 of 2014, dated 21.04.2014, as contained in Memo No. 194 dated 07.04.2014, passed by the Respondent No. 2 (appellate authority) confirming the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the Respondent No. 3, pertaining to dismissal from services of Police Constable and has further prayed for payment of arrears of salary and all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that in pursuance to Advertisement No. 1 of 2010, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Garhwa District. In the application form, the petitioner made a declaration that no criminal case is pending against him in any court or in any police station. The said application containing the declaration was verified from the concerned Police Station and in course of verification, it came to light that there is a criminal case being Garhwa P.S. Case No. 90 of 2001, dated 17.05.2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 327 of 2001 is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was served with memo of charges containing the allegations as per Rule 673 ‘Ka’ of the Police Manual. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect from services and on the basis of the alleged charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the memo of charge before the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa on 17.07.2013, stating therein, that he has not suppressed the fact that any criminal case is pending in any court of law against him rather, he left the column of declaration blank only for the reason that though one criminal case was pending in the court but neither any evidence was produced against him nor he was convicted in any criminal case. Later on he was acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 11.01.2012, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa. In the explanation, he has also submitted that Rule 673 (ga) of the Police Manual is not applicable in his case. Later on he was acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 11.01.2012, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa. In the explanation, he has also submitted that Rule 673 (ga) of the Police Manual is not applicable in his case. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner has been found guilty in the departmental proceeding for suppressing the material fact, on the basis of evidences of prosecution witnesses and the defence version brought in the said departmental proceeding and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer, the petitioner has been dismissed from the service vide District Force Order dated 05.12.2013. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner having no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the respondents have erred in not considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, wherein, it has been submitted that he has not suppressed or concealed any information regarding pendency of criminal case against him deliberately or intentionally. Moreover, the factum of his acquittal in a criminal case by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 11.01.2012 in Garhwa P.S. Case No. 90 of 2001, dated 17.05.2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 327 of 2001 has not been considered in its right perspective by respondents. Moreover, merely lodging of case in Police Station, a person cannot be held guilty. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner by the respondents is concerned, the same is not in consonance or commensurate with the charges leveled against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has referred to the judgment reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 , Commissioner of Police and others-versus-Sandeep Kumar, and the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 8 of the said judgment has been pleased to hold that approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents repelling the contentions made in the writ application. 6. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents repelling the contentions made in the writ application. 6. In their counter affidavit, it has been inter alia, submitted that in the application form for the appointment on the post of Police Constable the petitioner made a false declaration that no criminal case is pending against him whereas in the verification of the application form and the declaration made therein as per Rule 673 (ka) of Police Manual was made vide Memo dated 20.02.2011 from the concerned police station and it was disclosed that there was a criminal case i.e. Garhwa P.S. Case No. 90 of 2001 pending against the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner knowingly and deliberately concealed the real fact in order to get the job deceitfully. Since the petitioner was found guilty of suppressing the material fact in the departmental proceeding and being dissatisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the impugned order of punishment has been passed, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has assiduously submitted that being a member of the disciplined force, the petitioner ought to have disclosed the fact of pendency of a criminal case but the petitioner resorted to suppression of facts regarding criminal antecedent, which is a misconduct and the petitioner was liable for action under Rule 673 (ka) of the Police Manual. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the record, the facts as disclosed in the present proceeding is that the petitioner submitted his application seeking appointment on the post of Constable in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 01 of 2010 and in the application form, the petitioner left the column of declaration blank only for the reason that though one criminal case was pending in the Court but neither any evidence was produced against him nor he was convicted in any criminal case. Later on, he was acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, I Garhwa. Moreover, after joining on the post of Constable, there has been no complaints whatsoever against the petitioner. 9. Later on, he was acquitted in the said case vide judgment dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, I Garhwa. Moreover, after joining on the post of Constable, there has been no complaints whatsoever against the petitioner. 9. On perusal of the impugned order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, it would be quite apparent that the respondents-authorities have concluded that the petitioner has suppressed the material information on the premise that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner, as ascertained from Garhwa Police Station that there is a criminal case being Garhwa P.S. Case No. 90 of 2001, dated 17.05.2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 327 of 2001, pending against the petitioner but as per Annexure-2/1, the petitioner has been honourably acquitted from the said case vide judgment dated 11.01.2012. Although, the said fact was brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority but the same has not been considered in a right perspective and in the peculiar facts of the present case, it cannot be denied that the information furnished by the petitioner can be on account of a bona fide mistake on misconception, but cannot be construed as deliberate suppression of material facts. Admittedly, the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case was not a disqualification for his appointment on the post of Constable but the dismissal of the petitioner from services is on account of suppression of material facts. 10. In the case of Commissioner of Police and others-versus-Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the candidature of a person for the post of Head Constable was cancelled on the ground that he had concealed his involvement in a criminal case under Section 325/34 I.P.C. when he was aged about 20 years. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 8 of the said judgment has been pleased to hold that approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. Upholding the cancellation of his candidature illegal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since the offence was not a serious offence, more lenient view should be taken. Upholding the cancellation of his candidature illegal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since the offence was not a serious offence, more lenient view should be taken. In the case in hand, the petitioner has been honourably acquitted from the criminal case vide judgment dated 11.01.2012 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, I, Garhwa, in S.T. Case No. 154 of 2003 arising out of G.R. No. 327 of 2001. 11. Viewed thus, the impugned order dated 05.12.2013 (Annexure-5) passed by the Respondent No. 3 and the appellate order dated 07.04.2014 (Annexure-6), passed by the Respondent No. 2 (appellate authority) are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents to consider the case afresh on the quantum of punishment in the light of the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.