Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 130 (JHR)

Nahun Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2023-02-07

S.N.PATHAK

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter no. 02/D-06-01-43/ 2012, Dated 04.01.2013, issued vide Memo No. 02/D, by Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand, Ranchi; the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Area, Ranchi, issued vide memo no. 993, dated 17.03.2012 as also the order of dismissal of petitioner from service, vide Ranchi District Order No. 5156 of 2008, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi issued vide memo no. 3877, dated 07.11.2008/25.10.2008. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow him to join services with all consequential benefits. 3. As per factual matrix, petitioner was appointed as a constable in the erstwhile state of Bihar on 15.10.1999. After his appointment, petitioner was discharging his duties efficiently and to the satisfaction of the superior authorities. It is case of the petitioner that in the year 2002, seven days’ compensatory leave was sanctioned to the petitioner and after expiry of the said period, he gave his joining. Petitioner remained absent from 31.03.2005 up to 05.06.2005 and thereafter joined the services on 06.06.2005. Thereafter, for the charges of gross negligence towards his duties and for unauthorized absence, petitioner was proceeded departmentally in Departmental Proceeding No. 91 of 2006. 4. It is specific case of the petitioner that unauthorized absence was neither intentional nor deliberate rather in compelling circumstances as he was mentally ill and was undergoing treatment and it was only after recovery, he presented himself before the authorities by preferring an Appeal, which was not considered and he was dismissed from the service mechanically on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the orders of the superior authorities, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 5. Mr. Atanu Bannerjee assisted by Mr. Prabhat Kumar Munda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the punishment order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that earlier petitioner had given prior intimation and taken prior leave and after exhausting the leave, joined the services. It was due to compelling circumstances that he was prevented from joining the services and as such it cannot be termed as wilful and deliberate absence from duty. Learned counsel further submits that earlier petitioner had given prior intimation and taken prior leave and after exhausting the leave, joined the services. It was due to compelling circumstances that he was prevented from joining the services and as such it cannot be termed as wilful and deliberate absence from duty. Learned counsel further submits that he underwent treatment before a leading practitioner of RINPAS and a certificate to that effect has also been submitted before the Appellate Authority but the same was not considered and the Appellate Authority, relying upon the findings of the disciplinary authority, has affirmed the order of punishment. Learned counsel further argues that it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to consider the reply and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order as to why the Medical Certificate and other contention of the petitioner were not considered and plea raised by the petitioner was rejected. In absence of any specific findings, the Appellate Order can be comfortably said to be nonest in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that the punishment of dismissal from the service is too harsh and by awarding the capital punishment, the authorities have snatched livelihood of a poor constable and his family. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment order being too harsh, should be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remitted back before the authorities for fresh consideration on the point of quantum. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the Judgments passed in the case of Regional Manager, UCO Bank and another Vs. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj reported in (2022) 5 SCC 695 ; State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh reported in (2022) 5 SCC 563 [Para-22 and 23] and Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 . 6. Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to learned GA-II representing State vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and further submits that the writ petition requires no interference for the reasons that what has been argued is contrary to the certificate annexed in the writ petition. Learned counsel further draws attention of the Court towards the Medical Certificates which is at pages-38 to 40 and further submits that from perusal thereof it clearly transpires that the petitioner was undergoing treatment at RINPAS and certificate of Dr. Learned counsel further draws attention of the Court towards the Medical Certificates which is at pages-38 to 40 and further submits that from perusal thereof it clearly transpires that the petitioner was undergoing treatment at RINPAS and certificate of Dr. Ashok Nag reflects that the treatment started on 06.08.2003 and continued till 12.02.2004 and on recovery, certificate was issued on 29.03.2004. From the certificate dated 29.03.2004 it is clear that after recovery, petitioner was found fit to join duties. The unauthorized absence was for the period 31.03.2005 and 06.06.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that petitioner was undergoing medical treatment during that period and as such because of compelling circumstances, he failed to appear before the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel emphatically argues that contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not praiseworthy rather the same is misconceived in view of the certificate annexed by him in the writ petition itself. Learned counsel further submits that it was a case of wilful absence and a person who is a member of the disciplined force, cannot be allowed to desert the police force in the manner in which he has done. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has tried to dupe this Court also by bringing on record the certificates which are not relevant to prove charges against him. Learned counsel places reliance upon the Judgment passed in the case of Sujit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2022) 4 JBCJ 694; Suresh Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. and others reported in (2022) 4 JBCJ 256 and the order dated 30.11.2021, passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Tudu Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S) No. 419 of 2019. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant case for the following facts and reasons: (i) Petitioner has tried to impress this Court that for the charges levelled against him he was not liable to be proceeded departmentally for the fact that he was undergoing medical treatment because of his mental illness. He could not produce him before the authorities and as such the authorities proceeded ex-parte and any order visiting with civil consequences, which is ex-parte, is fit to be set aside. The arguments of the petitioner is not praiseworthy rather it is misconceived. (ii) From very perusal of the certificates it appears that the petitioner’s absenteeism was for the period 31.03.2005 to 06.06.2005 whereas contrary to it reliance has been placed on the medical certificates which shows that petitioner was undergoing treatment from 06.08.2003 to 29.03.2004. Thereafter, a certificate was given by the Doctor that he was fit to resume the duties. The certificate produced by the petitioner and the plea taken by him are not in consonance with the charges and as such the same is fit to be rejected. (iii) Reliance of the petitioner on the Judgment is also not attracted in this case on the ground that the petitioner’s unauthorized absence was not in compelling circumstances. The reasoning assigned by the petitioner for not producing himself before the authorities are not as per the reasoning mentioned in the writ petition. The certificates clearly show that petitioner was undergoing treatment for mental illness for the period from 06.08.2003 to 29.03.2004 whereas absenteeism was for the period 31.03.2005 and 06.06.2005. Admittedly, the charges are not as such which shocks conscience and warrants interference. The Judgment relied upon by the petitioner is also not attracted in this case as certainly if the charges were as such that shocks conscience of the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can go for judicial review but this is not a case where there is requirement of any judicial review. 8. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, judicial pronouncement as well as in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find no merits and no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed.