Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2072 (JHR)

Subhas Kumar Suman v. State of Jharkhand

2017-12-01

AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. When this matter was called out, counsel appearing for the appellant remained absent. 2. Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant (original petitioner) was dismissed from services vide order dated 31st July, 1999 because of gross misconduct committed by him while serving the respondents as Constable and hence, present appellant (Original petitioner) preferred W.P. (S) No. 3731 of 2003, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13th November, 2009 and hence, the Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 3. It is further submitted by counsel appearing for the respondents that the appellant delinquent (original petitioner) was working in Railway Police at Dhanbad as Constable On 18th June, 1998, he had not reported to duty with his ammunition in spite of specific order passed by the superiors and he was found quarreling with shopkeeper Vijay Tiwari and Vikash Aggarwal and using abusive language under the influence of liquor and thus, he is not fit to hold the post of Constable. 4. Charge-sheet issued. Enquiry Officer was appointed. Adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer has given a report to the effect that the charges levelled against the appellant-delinquent (original petitioner) have been proved and thereafter, Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 31st July, 1999 inflicting the punishment of dismissal. 5. This order was challenged by appellant-delinquent (original petitioner) before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Railway). The departmental appeal preferred by the appellant-delinquent (original petitioner) was also dismissed vide order dated 6th June, 2000. 6. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that there is no procedural lacuna in holding the Departmental Proceeding. Adequate opportunity of being heard was also given. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that this appellant reported to his duly without ammunition and despite specific order passed by the high ranking administrative officer, it was not obeyed. Further, this appellant was found quarreling with the shopkeepers under the influence of liquor and has used abusive language. Thus, looking to the nature of misconduct, the punishment inflicted upon this appellant-delinquent (original petitioner) neither can be labeled as unreasonably excessive nor it can be said that it is shockingly disproportionate. 7. Further, this appellant was found quarreling with the shopkeepers under the influence of liquor and has used abusive language. Thus, looking to the nature of misconduct, the punishment inflicted upon this appellant-delinquent (original petitioner) neither can be labeled as unreasonably excessive nor it can be said that it is shockingly disproportionate. 7. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned. Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (S) No. 3731 of 2003 vide order dated 13th November, 2009, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained. REASONS 8. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following reasons. (i) This appellant is the original petitioner, who was serving as a Constable in Railway Police at Dhanbad. (ii) Charge-sheet was issued for the misconduct committed by this appellant that he did not report to his duty with his ammunition on 18th June, 1998, disobeyed specific order of the superiors and he was found quarreling with shopkeeper Vijay Tiwary and Vikash Agarwal under the influence of liquor. This appellant has also used abusive language. (iii) Enquiry officer was appointed and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant, Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charges levelled against him are proved. (iv) It further appears that Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Superintendent of Police, on 31st July, 1999, has passed an order of dismissal of this appellant from the services. (v) It further appears that the departmental appeal was preferred by this appellant-delinquent (original petitioner). Again the opportunity of being heard was given to this appellant and departmental appeal was dismissed on 6th June, 2000. Thus, it appears that adequate opportunity of being heard was given and there is no procedural lacuna in holding the departmental proceeding. (vi) Now the only question left before this Court is to decide as to whether the quantum of punishment is shockingly disproportionate and unreasonable excessive to the nature of misconduct. It appears that the appellant is working in the police force, which is a disciplined force. Appellant joined the duty without ammunition and disobeyed the specific order passed by the high ranking administrative officers. He was found quarreling with Vijay Tiwari and Vikash Aggarwal, shopkeepers under the influence of the heavenly liquid and he had also used abusive language. It appears that the appellant is working in the police force, which is a disciplined force. Appellant joined the duty without ammunition and disobeyed the specific order passed by the high ranking administrative officers. He was found quarreling with Vijay Tiwari and Vikash Aggarwal, shopkeepers under the influence of the heavenly liquid and he had also used abusive language. (vii) Thus, this behaviour and the dereliction in duty on the part of the appellant, who is a police personnel, are not befitting the post held by the appellant. Thus, quantum of punishment inflicted upon this appellant by the Disciplinary Authority, which is affirmed by the Departmental Appellate Authority, cannot be termed as shockingly disproportionate or unreasonably excessive. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing' for the respondents that appellant was working in a discipline force and such type of grave misconduct on the part of an employee of the disciplined force should be adequately punished and removal from services of such type of delinquent is an obvious outcome of the departmental proceeding and is not at all shockingly disproportionate or unreasonably excessive and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been pleased to observe in the following cases that when misconduct is committed by a person whom society considers a protector of law or by a person who is a member of a disciplined force, punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate. (viii) It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 106 , Paragraphs 15 and 16 as under: "15. The High Court has also mentioned in the impugned order that the respondent is a married man with family consisting of number of dependants and is suffering hardship because of the said "economic capital punishment". However, such mitigating circumstances are to be looked into by the departmental authorities. It was not even pleaded before them and is an after-effect of the penalty. In all cases dealing with the penalty of removal. dismissal or compulsory retirements, hardship would result. That would not mean that in a given case punishment of removal can be discarded by the Court. That cannot be a ground for the Court to interdict the penalty. It was not even pleaded before them and is an after-effect of the penalty. In all cases dealing with the penalty of removal. dismissal or compulsory retirements, hardship would result. That would not mean that in a given case punishment of removal can be discarded by the Court. That cannot be a ground for the Court to interdict the penalty. This is specifically held by this Court in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka in the following words : "20. A person, when dismissed from service, is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunished. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important. Keeping the aforementioned principles in view, we may hereinafter notice a few recent decisions of this Court." 16. In the person case, it cannot be imputed that the departmental authorities while. imposing the punishment acted in a manner which manifests lack of reasonableness or fairness. In Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. A.L. Mohan Rao, charge against the delinquent employee was that he had colluded with one of the Branch Managers and enabled grant of fictitious loan. The High Court, interfered with the punishment of dismissed and ordered reinstatement on sympathetic ground even when it found that the misconduct was proved. This Court reversed the judgment of the High Court. Repeatedly, this Court has emphasised that the Courts should not be guided by misplaced sympathy or continuity ground, as a factor in judicial review while examining the quantum of punishment. 17. We would like to refer the case of Ranvir Singh v. Union of India as well. The appellant in that case was working as a Constable in the Border Security Force. Penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him on account of his failure to return to the place of duty despite instructions given to him and refusal to take food in protest when he was punished and refusal to do pack drill while undergoing rigorous imprisonment. This Court held that the punishment imposed upon him was not disproportionate." (Emphasis supplied) (ix) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of. This Court held that the punishment imposed upon him was not disproportionate." (Emphasis supplied) (ix) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of. Police v. Syed Hussain reported in (2006) 3 Supreme Cases 173 at paragraph 16 as under: "16. Furthermore, the punishment of removal from service is not imposed only in the case of fraud or defalcation of Government funds but even where a misconduct is committed by a person who holds a position of trust and on whom society looks forward as a protector of law and in such cases punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate, and thus the same was not even violative of the doctrine of proportionality." (Emphasis supplied) (x) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. and others v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan reported in (2006) 2 SCC 373 at paragraph 15 as under: "15. This takes us to the last submission of the counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the offence, said to have been committed, being minor in nature and no loss being caused to the owner of the property, inasmuch as the same had been recovered on the spot, lenient punishment may be. awarded to place of dismissal from service. We are unable to countenance this submission. The gravity of the offence must necessarily be measured with the nature of the offence. The respondent was a member of a disciplined force holding the rank of Head Constable. The duty assigned to him was a "bandobast' duty during the visit of the then President Bill Clinton, who ran a security risk of the highest grade. His misconduct could have led to serious security lapse resulting in fatal consequences. But, because of timely detection by the electrician, PW 4, the lens was recovered and immediately restored. We entirely agree with the inquiry officer that the charges are serious in nature, being committed by a member of a disciplined force, who deserved stringent punishment. To instill the confidence of the public in the. establishment, the only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal from service, which has been correctly awarded." (Emphasis supplied) 9. We entirely agree with the inquiry officer that the charges are serious in nature, being committed by a member of a disciplined force, who deserved stringent punishment. To instill the confidence of the public in the. establishment, the only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal from service, which has been correctly awarded." (Emphasis supplied) 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P. (S) No. 3731 of 2003 vide judgment and order dated 13th November, 2009 and we see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.