The Division Bench of Jharkhand High upheld the order dismissing a police officer from service and held that recording every aspect of a case is not a requirement in law and it would be sufficient compliance of natural justice if there is some reason disclosed in the order of punishment and the findings recorded by the departmental authority in a properly constituted departmental enquiry are not open to challenge in a proceeding for Certiorari unless it is shown to the Court that the order of punishment has been passed contrary to the extant rules or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a police officer dismissed from service based on a domestic inquiry on the charges of negligence, indiscipline, dereliction of duty and unauthorised absence from duty filed the Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the writ court which upheld the impugned order.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the dismissal order was a cryptic one that did not take note of the materials produced by the department in the domestic enquiry.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the order of punishment should contain the reasons for awarding the same according to the principles of natural justice but to record every aspect of a case is not a requirement in law and it would be sufficient compliance of natural justice if there is some reason disclosed in the order of punishment.
The court further stated that the order of punishment in the present case recorded the imputation against the police officer and charges of negligence, indiscipline, dereliction of duty and unauthorized absence from duty were proved against him in the domestic enquiry.
The court further observed that the powers of judicial review are limited and confined to the well-known grounds of violation of natural justice, arbitrariness, irrationality and perversity and the finding of fact recorded by the departmental authority in a properly constituted departmental enquiry are not open to challenge in a proceeding for Certiorari unless it is shown to the Court that the order of punishment has been passed contrary to the extant rules or in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further stated that sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence is not a ground to challenge the order of punishment and the court cannot interfere in the same in the presence of some evidence to support the order of punishment.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and concluded that there was no reason to interfere in the matter.
Case Title: Arvind Kumar Ray vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandrashekhar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra
Case No.: L.P.A No. 597 of 2019
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ranjan Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
