Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 735 (JHR)

Virendra Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2020-07-08

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 26.09.2004 (Annexure-4), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka-respondent no. 5, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and also for a direction upon the respondent to pay the back wages and other consequential benefits including pension etc. to the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner, while he was working as constable, a departmental proceeding bearing Dumka district departmental proceeding no. 36 of 2002 was drawn up against him on the ground that on 25.07.2002, while he was posted at Kathikund Police station, he was under the influence of alcohol. He has created disturbance at Kathikund Chowk which was unacceptable by the local people. It has been alleged that when one Akhilesh Sah, who was the conductor of a Bus, filed a written complaint of the incident against him before the officer-in-charge, Kathikund, the petitioner tore the same. The fact further transpires that the medical examination of the petitioner was also conducted by the medical officer, Kathikund and as per the report there was smell of alcohol coming from his mouth. It also transpires from the record that the petitioner also had a fight with one local person namely, China Mian in which the said person was injured. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was conducted after serving charge-sheet to the petitioner vide memo no. 1824 dated 05.08.2002 for filing show-cause. Subsequently, the petitioner filed his show-cause. Since, the reply to the show-cause was not found satisfactory as such, enquiry was initiated and several notices were issued to the petitioner for his appearance and filing defense statement. Altogether 16 notices were sent to the petitioner but he never appeared in the proceeding. The copy of the notices has also been annexed as Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State which transpires that those notices were served to the petitioner. Thereafter, the conducting officer recorded the statement of witnesses-Sujata Kumari, the then officer-in-charge, Kathikund and China Mian and found the petitioner guilty for the charges leveled against him and accordingly, submitted his opinion on 31.08.2003. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide memo no. Thereafter, the conducting officer recorded the statement of witnesses-Sujata Kumari, the then officer-in-charge, Kathikund and China Mian and found the petitioner guilty for the charges leveled against him and accordingly, submitted his opinion on 31.08.2003. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide memo no. 2953 dated 01.12.2003, sent the copy of enquiry report along with opinion of the conducting officer to the petitioner for his defense, but even then the petitioner did not choose to file any explanation and as a result, the dismissal order has been passed and the petitioner was dismissed form service. From the record it also appears that the petitioner had filed an appeal in the year 2004 which was also dismissed and the order was served to the petitioner. It further transpires that after a lapse of several years the petitioner again filed an appeal against his dismissal order for the second time before the Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pragna, Dumka on 01.04.2015 and vide memo no. 138 dated 08.04.2015 sent the copy of the same to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pragna range, Dumka. The concerned respondent after going through the entire facts and the order passed in the appeal filed earlier, the Deputy Inspector General of Police dismissed the same vide its order dated 01.12.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the quantum of punishment he prays that the case may be remitted back to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that all the charges has been proved on the basis of documents and the statement of witnesses and the petitioner never bothered to appear in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner has filed the appeal twice and second time he suppressed the result of the earlier appeal. Since the act of the petitioner is not bona-fide as such, no leniency shall be granted to the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner is only entitled for GIC and PF by way of his retiral dues and not pension but since the petitioner never approached the respondent authorities, the same could not be paid to him. 6. Since the act of the petitioner is not bona-fide as such, no leniency shall be granted to the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner is only entitled for GIC and PF by way of his retiral dues and not pension but since the petitioner never approached the respondent authorities, the same could not be paid to him. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that the respondent-State has taken several steps for conducting a fair enquiry and as many as 16 notices were sent to the petitioner for his appearance before the enquiry officer, but for the reason best known to the petitioner, he never appeared in the departmental proceeding. It also appears that the order of termination has been passed after following due procedure of law and even the second show-cause notice was sent to the petitioner, but he did not choose to reply the same and only after the order of termination, he preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. As a matter of fact, he also filed another appeal by suppressing the result of the appeal filed earlier, which is not in accordance with law. It is pertinent to mention here that the only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner, however, in view of the gravity of charge and the act of the petitioner and also the fact that he was employed in a disciplined force of police service, in my considered opinion, no leniency could be granted to the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant application is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondent no. 5 by filing a representation for payment of his GIC and P.F. amount. If any such representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation and the amount towards GIC and P.F. along with statutory interest shall be paid to him within a further period of 2 months.