Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 817 (JHR)

Rajendra Pal v. State of Jharkhand

2019-04-04

ANANDA SEN

body2019
ORDER : Petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 877(A)/GO dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa by which , on remand, the application of the petitioner for reconsideration of order of dismissal was rejected. This is second round of litigation. Petitioner earlier moved before this Court vide W.P(S) No. 7819 of 2013 challenging the order of dismissal and the appellate order. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year 1986. An FIR was lodged being Sadar (Chaibasa) PS Case No. 31 of 2001 dated 24.5.2001 against several persons for committing illegality in appointment of constables pursuant to the advertisement No. 01 of 1998. There is an allegation that the appointment was made on the basis of false and fake documents and also after interpolating the records. The petitioner, was not named in the FIR but later on was made an accused on the ground that he had interpolated the documents. Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner being Department Proceeding No. 21 of 2007. Charges were framed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had made over-writings in the muster chart, candidates register, date of birth in the applications, educational qualifications and in different other columns. A departmental proceeding was conducted and after inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders in W.P(S) No. 7819 of 2013. Main thrust of the argument was that petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case being G.R. No. 211 of 2001 (S) / T.R. No. 2 of 2016. 3. After hearing the parties, this Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 19.10.2016 disposed of the writ application setting aside the punishment order and the appellate order and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority with a direction to pass appropriate order on the quantum of punishment taking into consideration the fact of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case. While coming to the said conclusion, this Hon’ble Court gave a finding that the disciplinary authority relied upon the inquiry report in a very cryptic manner. Further this Hon’ble Court came to a conclusion that charges, both in the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case are same, thus directed the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the quantum of punishment. Further this Hon’ble Court came to a conclusion that charges, both in the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case are same, thus directed the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the quantum of punishment. It is necessary to quote Paragraph no.7 of the said judgment:- “In view of the reasons stated in the forgoing paragraphs and as a logical sequitur to the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the punishment dated 30.08.2010, vide Annexure-4, passed by the respondent No.4 and the order of the appellate authority dated 10.05.2012, vide Annexure-5, are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority with a direction to pass appropriate order on the quantum of punishment taking into consideration the fact of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. Petitioner represented before the disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary authority vide order dated 31.3.2017 reiterated the earlier order of dismissal and disposed of the said representation. The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first round of litigation, this Hon’ble Court has directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner on the quantum of punishment. He submits that this clearly suggests that this Hon’ble Court was of the view that the punishment is harsh it should be reconsidered taking into consider the fact that petitioner has been acquitted. He submits that the disciplinary authority, on reconsideration, failed to appreciate the point which was raised by the petitioner. He submits that the disciplinary authority erroneously concluded that the acquittal is not honourable thus again passed dismissal order. He submits that from the judgment of acquittal it is clear that his acquittal is honourable. He submits that in view of the said background, impugned order is liable to be set aside and needs to be reconsidered by the disciplinary authority. 6. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that in terms of order passed by this Court on earlier occasion in WP(S) No. 7819 of 2013 the case of the petitioner was reconsidered and as it was found that the acquittal was not honourable, thus the dismissal order was reiterated. 7. 6. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that in terms of order passed by this Court on earlier occasion in WP(S) No. 7819 of 2013 the case of the petitioner was reconsidered and as it was found that the acquittal was not honourable, thus the dismissal order was reiterated. 7. After hearing the parties, I find that in the earlier round of litigation, this Hon’ble Court had set aside the order of punishment and the appellate order. After setting aside the said two orders, the disciplinary authority was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the quantum of punishment, taking into consideration the judgment of acquittal. The aforesaid finding attained finality as the said remained unchalleged The disciplinary authority thereafter passed the impugned order which is at Annexure-9 to the writ application. 8. I have gone through the entire impugned order, the disciplinary authority considered the judgment of the trial court. The said consideration reflects only in one of the paragraph that is third last paragraph of the impugned order at internal page 3 of the said order. It only records that since the judgment of acquittal is by giving benefit of doubt, the quantum of punishment of the petitioner cannot be reconsidered. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Others Vrs. Pradeep Kumar & Another reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797 while dealing with reinstatement in service on acquittal in criminal cases held that mere acquittal will not give a right to the petitioner to reinstate. It has held that acquittal is not conclusive of suitability of the candidate to be employed unless said acquittal is honourable. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that unless the acquittal is honourable the person cannot claim the benefit of the said criminal case. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment, I find that an acquittal should be honourable to seek reinstatement. 9. On this background, I have gone through the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in G.R. No. 211 of 2001 (S) /R No. 02 of 2016. After a full-fledged contested trial, the trial court in a well-reasoned judgment has held that the charges were not established against the persons, who are facing trial. The Court also came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to proof this case. After a full-fledged contested trial, the trial court in a well-reasoned judgment has held that the charges were not established against the persons, who are facing trial. The Court also came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to proof this case. After reading the entire judgment, I find that nowhere it gives any little impression that the acquittal is based on benefit of doubt. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that acquittal of the petitioner is Honourable and not on the benefit of doubt. 10. Since the acquittal is not on the benefit of doubt, the finding on the contrary in the order dated 31.3.2017 (impugned order) is bad and cannot be sustained. I, thus set aside the impugned order dated 31.3.2017 and remit the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Chaibas, to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner after treating the acquittal of the petitioner to be Honourable. 11. Thus, this application stands allowed.