Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2101 (JHR)

Ramanuj Prasad Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2018-09-19

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2018
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the petitioners were proceeded against for major punishment under Dhanbad Rail Departmental Proceeding Nos. 71 of 2003 and 74 of 2003 for the charges of indiscipline, violation of rules, dereliction of duty and the act of cowardice. They were posted on 14.04.2003 at Chandrapura Rail Police Station as armed personnel. As per the Police Manual Rule 425-2(ka), they were responsible for protection of their arms and ammunition, failure of which on their part, entailed loss of government property. Under the instant Rule arms and ammunition were to be kept in chain with their uniform and not to be thrown uncared in barrack. Had they taken such care and conformed to the rules, loss of government property would not have occurred. On that day 150 armed extremists attacked the barrack from all sides but petitioners were not alert and up to the task to face the challenge, which entailed loss of image of Police and government property. These extremists took away government property like Rifle, Bullets, Stengun, magazine, cash and uniforms of the personnel of the police force and also caused damage. Petitioners did not act or retaliate, which was an act of cowardice on their part. 3. This matter was inquired by the Police Inspector, Railway Circle, Gomoh who found the petitioners responsible. A disciplinary proceedings were initiated thereafter. Enquiry Officer was the then Sergent Major, Rail, Dhanbad. Prosecution witnesses Arjun Ram, the then Police Inspector, Gomoh; Sri Gariban Ram, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police(2), Dhanbad and Sri Om Prakash Prasad, the then Confidential Reader, Office of Superintendent of Police, Rail, Dhanbad supported the charges in their statement. Defence took the plea that they were not part of the armed police force. Deployment of armed police force is undertaken for escort duty as per need. No armed police force was deputed for security of the Kot. On 13.04.2003 Petitioner No.2 was deputed for escorting Train No. 8621 up and 8622 down. After that duty he returned on 14.04.2003 at 5.30, deposited the rifle and ammunition in the Kot and went to take rest, as on 14.04.2003 also he was deputed to escort train no. 8623 up and 8624 down. No arrangement was made for protection of the armoury by senior police officials except a Lathi Constable. After that duty he returned on 14.04.2003 at 5.30, deposited the rifle and ammunition in the Kot and went to take rest, as on 14.04.2003 also he was deputed to escort train no. 8623 up and 8624 down. No arrangement was made for protection of the armoury by senior police officials except a Lathi Constable. The Officer In-charge of the Police Station was in civil dress working at the Police Station and at the time of the incident he also ran and took shelter in the barrack. In the explosion caused by the extremists the Officer In-charge sustained minor injury. The extremists broke open the door of the Kot, entered the armoury and took away arms and ammunition. The Inquiry Officer however in his report found the charges established and opined that their misconduct was of serious nature. The Disciplinary authority, Superintendent of Police, Rail, Dhanbad thereafter passed the order of punishment vide memo no. 1401 and 1396 dated 31.12.2005 against the petitioners reducing them to the basic scale of pay for 3 years and that they would not be entitled to anything beyond what they have got during this period of suspension. 4. Petitioner no.1 had approached this Court against the order of punishment in W.P.S. No. 4257 of 2006 but the case was disposed of vide order dated 31.08.2006 with a direction to the appellate authority, Deputy Inspector General (Rail), Ranchi to dispose of the appeal within 3 months. The appellate authority by order dated 08.01.2007 after consideration of the grounds urged by the petitioners, inquiry report and the materials found during inquiry did not find any merit in the appeal, which was accordingly rejected. The appellate authority was of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioners were of very serious nature for which they deserved dismissal from service but the disciplinary authority had imposed a punishment of reduction to the basic scale of pay for the period of 3 years only. As such, no interference was required. He also found that on account of act of cowardice on the part of the petitioners, there has been huge loss of government property and image of Police Force. 5. Petitioners being aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, have approached this Court. As such, no interference was required. He also found that on account of act of cowardice on the part of the petitioners, there has been huge loss of government property and image of Police Force. 5. Petitioners being aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, have approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that there was no specific entrustment of duty upon the petitioners to protect the armoury where arms and ammunition was lying. Petitioner no.2 was deputed to escort trains on 13.04.2003 and was also scheduled to escort a train on 14.04.2003. Petitioner no.2 took charge of duty from petitioner no.1 at 8.00 a.m. on 14.04.2003 and relieved him from duty. Petitioner No.1 has also stated that Officer In-charge of the Rail Police Station had given him 24 hours duty as Thana Security duty and on 14.04.2003 he was deputed to escort the Train No. 8623 up and 8624 down. If petitioners were not deputed on active duty for protection of armoury during that period, they cannot be made responsible for the loot of arms and ammunition by a sudden attack of extremists on the railway police station. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had not considered the defence of the delinquent petitioners in proper perspective and unfairly held them responsible for the alleged acts. Therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also passingly questioned the quantum of punishment on the ground that Rule 824 of the Police Manual does not provide for reduction to the basic scale of pay for 3 years. However, on being confronted it transpires that Rule 832 provides for imposing punishment of reduction to the lower post and lower scale in the time scale for the period for which it shall be effective. Learned counsel has also made a submission that the disciplinary authority failed to consider that pecuniary penalty cannot be imposed beyond 1 month pay at the maximum under Rule 832 itself. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that similar punishment has been imposed on other police constables who were posted there on 14.04.2003 at the time of attack by extremists. 6. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that similar punishment has been imposed on other police constables who were posted there on 14.04.2003 at the time of attack by extremists. 6. Learned counsel for the State has supported the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as upheld in Appeal. He submits that the petitioners’ presence in the barrack is not in dispute at the time when the attack by 150 armed extremists took place. Petitioners formed part of Armed Police Force who were entrusted arms and ammunition which they had to carry while on duty and even off duty they had to ensure its protection instead of throwing it in an unkept manner. The conduct of the petitioners reflected extreme cowardice on the part of the Armed Police Force which resulted in loss of Government property, arms and ammunition, stengun, magazines, police uniform, pecuniary loss as also severe dent to the image of police force. Petitioners did not retaliate to the attack of the extremists and allowed the police station and armoury to be looted. As such, petitioners have been let go with lesser punishment than what they deserved i.e. dismissal from service. Proceedings were conducted as per the procedure prescribed and the delinquent petitioners were also given opportunity to put their defence and examine witnesses of the prosecution. Their defence has also been considered by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority before imposing the punishment. The Appellate Authority has also fully applied its mind to all materials on record and found no reason to interfere in the order of punishment. Punishment is also not disproportionate to the nature of misconduct established. Therefore, no interference is required. 7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and relevant material facts borne on record, noted above. Material evidence brought on record during the disciplinary inquiry and the defence of the petitioners taken together bereft of further details clearly shows the presence of the petitioners at the time of attack around 11.40 on 14.04.2003. Petitioners and other police personnel were there in the police station and in the barrack when the extremist attack took place. There was no retaliation to protect the police station or armoury on the part of the petitioners. Petitioners and other police personnel were there in the police station and in the barrack when the extremist attack took place. There was no retaliation to protect the police station or armoury on the part of the petitioners. They belong to Armed Police Force and they were expected to show character which is becoming of a Member of the Armed Police Force. However, police station was looted and also arms and ammunition and cash were also taken away by the extremists. During the course of disciplinary proceedings, adequate opportunity has been given to the delinquent employees to defend themselves. After consideration of all materials on record, the Inquiry Officer found the charges established. Disciplinary Authority also gave due consideration to the materials on record including the defence of the police personnel and found that the charges which were of very serious nature, were established against them. The Appellate Authority has in fact opined that the misconduct of the petitioners deserves more harsher punishment of dismissal from service. It is also evident from the reading of Rule 824 with 832 that the punishment imposed is permissible under the Police Manual. This Court does not find that the impugned punishment is disproportionate or excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above. 8. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, no case for interference has been made out on behalf of the petitioners. Writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.