The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that Article 14 will not attract if there is reasonable classification, but certainly, in case of unreasonable classification, Article 14 of the Constitution of India will attract. The reasonable classification is permitted by law on valid grounds as it discriminates one group from another on the basis of circumstances or characteristics. Therefore, distinction on the basis of reasonable classification is rational and logical, whereas distinction on the basis of reasonable classification or class legislation is improper and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the writ petitioner who happens to be the President of the Police Association was summoned to the court of learned ADJ to give his evidence, in regard to the incident that happened to one Jokhu Singh Sub-Inspector of Police. However, he did not appear, then, the warrant of arrest was issued against him and he was taken into custody. This made the police personnel annoyed and they had made a slogan before the Court of Learned ADJ for release of Jokhu Singh and they did the same incident on the Court premises also. After that, contempt proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner in the Patna High Court, and was convicted. Then, the appeal was filed and the decision was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Furthermore, departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner and other police personnel. The Petitioner was dismissed from the service and the appeal was filed before the Govt of Jharkhand by the Petitioner under Rule 851 (B) of Bihar Police Manual. The Home Secretary recommended reinstating the petitioner in the service after taking a lenient view, imposing the punishment of withholding three increments of the petitioner. However, no decision was taken and then, the writ petition was filed and the same was also disposed of. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the learned single judge failed to appreciate the facts with regard to the discrimination amongst the identically placed charge-sheeted persons, who have been inflicted with the punishment of five annual increments after reversal of the order of dismissal but in the case of the appellant, the order of dismissal has remained intact after dismissal of the appeal by the Home Secretary. Hence, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Contentions of the State
The State contended that the case of the Petitioner is not a case of discrimination as the facts related to the other police personnel are totally different from the case of the Petitioner. It was furthermore contended that being the president of the police association it was incumbent upon him to tackle the situation but instead of doing that, he has aggravated the situation, for which, the proceeding for contempt has also been initiated, in which, he was convicted for three months.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that the law is well settled that there cannot be any discrimination even while imposing punishment on the principle of parity in awarding punishment.
It was furthermore observed that it is well-established law that Article 14 of the Constitution of India will not attract in cases where there is a legitimate classification, but it will undoubtedly attract in cases where there is an unreasonable classification. Since the reasonable classification separates one group from another based-on circumstances or traits, it is legal and permissible. Thus, it is acceptable and logical to make a distinction based on reasonable classification, but it is improper and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to make a differentiation based on reasonable classification or class legislation.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah, Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P, Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj vs. Bank of India, Kathi Raning Rawat vs. State of Saurashtra, Western U.P. Electric Power & Supply Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., and Air India vs. Nergesh Meerza.
The court noted that the Petitioner was dismissed from the service by taking aid of exception to Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, it is well settled that if an employee has been convicted of any criminal charges as mandated in the Constitution as under Article 311(2)(a), no such right of the concerned public servant is to remain in service.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the learned single judge had committed no error in dismissing the writ petition.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the instant appeal.
Case Title: Kishun Deo Choudhary V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Rai
Case No.: L.P.A. No.385 of 2023
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pandey A.N. Roy, Advocate Ms. Arti Roy, Advocate
Advocates for the State: Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC(L&C)-III Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
