Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 876 (JHR)

Chandan Kumar Mallik v. State of Jharkhand

2020-09-11

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in Memo No.39/Confidential dated 24.05.2014 passed by the Commandant, IRB-2 Chaibasa, Camp Musabani (Respondent No.4) whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service with immediate effect and also the order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.3), whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected on technical ground. It has been further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law from the date of dismissal. 3. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the instant writ application lie in a narrow compass. In the year 2011-12 the petitioner was sent for training in Tripura and after that he was posted in Patambha in the district of East Singhbhum and thereafter in Chakulia. On 12.11.2012, when the petitioner was going to Gujrat in election duty, it was alleged that he was drunk and abused the Hawaldar in the drunken stage. The petitioner was charge sheeted vide order dated 24.02.2013 (Annexure-1). The petitioner filed his show cause reply denying and disputing the charges levelled against him which was not considered and a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him (Annexure-2). In the Departmental Proceedings, several witnesses were examined and the petitioner was held guilty for the charges and the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 28.12.2013 submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-3). Pursuant to that, the petitioner submitted his final show-cause reply to the Disciplinary authority denying and disputing the charges leveled against him and pleaded innocence (Annexure-4). The Disciplinary Authority vide Memo No.39/Confidential dated 24.05.2014 passed the order of dismissal from the services with immediate effect without paying any heed to the explanation of the petitioner in his show cause reply (Annexure-5). 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority, petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-6). The Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.06.2014, dismissed the Appeal on a technical ground by observing that the Appeal is not as per Rule 852 Kh of Police Manual. 5. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority, petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-6). The Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.06.2014, dismissed the Appeal on a technical ground by observing that the Appeal is not as per Rule 852 Kh of Police Manual. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal only on the technical ground to the effect that since the appeal has not been filed as per Rule 852 kh of Police Manual; as such, the same has not been considered. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to file a fresh appeal in accordance with Rule 852 kh and the respondent may be directed to dispose of said appeal in accordance with law. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated its stand as mentioned in the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner was also having an alternative remedy for revision under Rule 853 of the Police Manual. 7. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 853 of the Police Manual indicates about filing of revision but that is not mandatory and the same is optional. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that the only reason which has been assigned by the appellate authority while not considering the appeal is that the appeal was not in the prescribed format as enshrined under Rule 852 kh of Police Manual. In my considered opinion this is highly technical ground for not considering the appeal. Dismissal of an employee is a capital punishment in the service jurisprudence; as such, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority should not be hyper technical in deciding any case. In the interest of justice, I hereby quash the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was not considered and direct the petitioner to file fresh appeal in prescribed format as per Rule 852 kh of the Police Manual within a period of 3 months from today before the respondent No.3. In the interest of justice, I hereby quash the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was not considered and direct the petitioner to file fresh appeal in prescribed format as per Rule 852 kh of the Police Manual within a period of 3 months from today before the respondent No.3. If any such appeal in prescribed format as per Rule 852 kh of the Police Manual is preferred, the same shall be disposed of by the Appellate Authority within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of such appeal. It goes without saying that since the matter is of 2014 and the alternative remedy of filing revision is optional in nature, I am not accepting the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that this application should be dismissed on the ground for not availing the alternative remedy. Even otherwise, the appellate order has not been decided on merit. 9. In view of the aforesaid finding, the instant writ application is allowed for statistical purposes.