Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 269 (JHR)

Ranju Kumari v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-08

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT ORDER Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 30.03.2015, contained in Memo no.100/Confidential issued by respondent no.4 pertaining to punishment of withholding of sixth months'' annual increment, which is equivalent to one Black Mark and the period of suspension has been treated as half salary. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the appellate authority confirming the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. 2. Sans details, the facts as delineated in the writ petition, is that while the petitioner was posted as Lady Constable at Jharkhand Armed Police-10, Mahila Battalion, Hotwar, Ranchi, a departmental proceeding was initiated against her on the ground that regarding deputation for election duty on 16.12.2014 at 16.30 P.M. at Dumka district, P.S.-Taljhari, Vinu Adarsh Middle School, the petitioner quarreled with Mahila Police 397 Rojlin Ekka for this conduct, the Company Commander warned the petitioner for quarreling with the lady constable but by contravening the direction of the Company Commander, petitioner again assaulted the said lady constable-Rojlin Ekka and she was wounded and then she was sent to medical health center, Jarmundi. The matter was enquired into by the enquiry officer, who found the petitioner guilty of the charges and the charge sheet was issued and the petitioner was put under suspension vide Annexure-1 to the writ petitioner. Regarding the Charge of assaulting the lady constable, the petitioner submitted her clarification denying the allegation. The enquiry officer on the basis of enquiry submitted report vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition and found the petitioner being guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority basing on the report of the enquiry officer has inflicted the punishment of withholding of six months'' annual increment, which is equivalent to one black mark as well as payment of subsistence allowance only during the period of suspension. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority vide Annexure- 13 to the writ petition and the appellate authority vide order dated 06.08.2015 has been pleased to confirm the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petitioner left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding of the enquiry officer is contrary to the ocular evidence and the purported finding of the enquiry officer is factually incorrect and, therefore, the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority basing upon factually incorrect report is assailable and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been based on surmises, conjectures and presumption and, therefore, on this score also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Converting the averment made in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it has been, inter alia, submitted that the Commandant of JAP-10 issued suspension order dated 19.12.2014(Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) and the Commandant issued order to enquire into the matter and in pursuance of that, the enquiry officer collected the material on record and the petitioner was found guilty as evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Thereafter the Commandant issued charge sheet against the petitioner dated 10.01.2015 and also asked to submit explanation within ten days and the petitioner has submitted her explanation to the charge sheet before the Commandant. Thereafter, the Commandant appointed conducting officer for conducting the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The conducting officer issued letter dated 22.01.2015 requesting the petitioner to submit her explanation and her presence in the departmental proceeding no.04/2015 and the conducting officer issued letter dated 12.02.2015, therein specifically requesting the petitioner for her presence in the departmental proceeding(Annexure-E to the counter affidavit). The petitioner appeared before the conducting officer and the conducting officer recorded statement of witnesses in presence of the petitioner and also provided opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. The conducting officer found the petitioner guilty in the enquiry report dated 24.03.2015(Annexure-G to the counter affidavit). The petitioner appeared before the conducting officer and the conducting officer recorded statement of witnesses in presence of the petitioner and also provided opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. The conducting officer found the petitioner guilty in the enquiry report dated 24.03.2015(Annexure-G to the counter affidavit). The Commandant considered and perused the entire evidences as well as enquiry report along with the explanation submitted by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner committed grave misconduct hence the Commandant passed the order of punishment of withholding six months'' annual increment, which is equivalent to one black mark and the period of suspension has been treated as half salary and the order of the same has been confirmed by the order of the appellate authority. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit and vociferously submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been passed on the report of enquiry officer and the same has been confirmed by the appellate authority and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the impugned order of punishment having been confirmed by the appellate authority does not warrant interference due to following facts and reasons: In the case in hand, in pursuance of allegation of charges as is evident from Annexure-1, the matter has been enquired into and the petitioner along with Rojlin Ekka, Constable have been found guilty for quarrelling in duty and basing upon the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has passed order of punishment, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority. In the case in hand, on the inception of the departmental proceeding, which culminated into passing of impugned order of punishment, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority, no procedural irregularity has been found and , as such, there is no infraction of any procedure nor there has been breach of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very very limited as the present case cannot said to be based on no evidence. Therefore, the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very very limited as the present case cannot said to be based on no evidence. Therefore, the view of the Court gets fortified by the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court and in view of seriousness of the activities and the misconduct committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied. Moreover, the fact findings were based on evidence, which cannot be interfered with, as has been held in the case of '' State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and another'' reported in (2009)8 SCC 310 wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the enquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the enquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusion. Applying the aforesaid principle of Hon''ble Apex Court, as indicated herein above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and the same being confirmed by the appellate authority. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition sans merit is dismissed.