Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4729 of 2009
(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
---------
Sunil Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur
Range, Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Singhbhum
(Kolhan) Range, Chaibasa.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa.
..... Respondents
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C.(Mines)III
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
By Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by
the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the
order passed by the disciplinary authority in Departmental
Proceeding No. 39 of 2005 as contained in Memo No. 1902
dated 23.04.2008, whereby the petitioner was awarded
punishment of dismissal from service and also for quashing
the appellate order dated 18.06.2009, whereby the appeal
of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of
punishment was sustained.
3. The fact reveals that while the petitioner was posted
in the Manoharpur Police Station as a Reserve Guard, a
Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2005 was instituted against
this petitioner and also against one Shankar Prasad Singh.
On the same allegations, a departmental proceeding was
also initiated against this petitioner and Shankar Prasad
Singh and finally the order of dismissal was passed against
both the delinquent employees.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner
was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case vide
judgment and order dated 27.07.2005 passed in S.T. No.
146 of 2005; as such, the impugned order of punishment
should also be quashed.
5. Mr. Bhanu Kumar submits that the co-employee
who was also charge-sheeted by the same charge-sheet and
was also punished departmentally; preferred a writ
application bearing W.P.(S) No. 4848 of 2009 which was
disposed of by directing the respondents to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law only on the quantum of
punishment.
He further submits that the instant writ application
may also be disposed of by quashing the impugned orders
in the light of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4848 of 2009;
wherein the Hon'ble Court has remitted the case back to
the authorities after quashing the impugned orders.
6. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the
respondent-State submits that the grounds as raised by the
petitioner in the instant writ application is not sustainable
in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the petitioner was given
ample opportunity and there was no procedural irregularity
in holding the departmental proceeding. However, Mr.
Krishna could not demonstrate that there is any difference
in the charges against this petitioner with that of Shankar
Prasad Singh.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the documents and averments made in
the respective affidavits, it appears that a common charge-
sheet was issued whereby this petitioner and Shankar
Prasad Singh was departmentally proceeded in connection
with the criminal case i.e. Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 9 of
2005 and thereafter, the petitioner as well as the co-
employee (Shankar Prasad Singh) were removed from
service. Subsequently, the said co-employee (Shankar Pd.
Singh) preferred a writ application before this Court and
this Court directed the respondent no.5 to consider the
matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance
with law only on quantum of punishment. Para 9 of the
said order is quoted herein below:-
"9. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and
judicial pronouncement and as a logical sequitor the
impugned order of punishment of dismissal dated
30.04.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority
(Respondent No. 5) in Departmental Proceeding No. 40
of 2005 being not legally sustainable is hereby
quashed. The Disciplinary Authority (respondent no.5
is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass
appropriate order in accordance with law on the
quantum of punishment within a period of four
months."
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, since the charges were common in case of both
the employees; as such, the impugned order of punishment
dated 23.04.2008 as well as the order in appeal dated
18.06.2009, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter
is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider
the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance
with law only on the quantum of punishment; within a
period of four months from the date of receipt/production
of copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application
stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 4th February, 2021
Amardeep/A.F.R
