Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 February, 2021
1 [W.P.(S) No. 3891 of 2016]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(S) No. 3891 of 2016
----
Birendra Kumar, son of late Nanheshwar Singh, resident of Village-
Jhikatiya, PO-Hiring, PS-Huntarganj, District-Chatra(Jharkhand)
..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Inspector General of Police (Trainee), Police House, PO and PS-
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
3.The Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Police House, PO and
PS -Dhurwa, District -Ranchi, Jharkhand
4.The Dy. Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Rani
Kothi, Doranda, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
5.The Superintendent of Police, Latehar, PO and PS Latehar, District
Latehar
6.The Police Inspector-cum-Conducting Officer, Latehar Circle, PO and PS
Latehar, District Latehar ...... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
For Resp.-State :- Mr. Shashank Saurav, Advocate
----
7/15.02.2021 Heard Mr. Sunil Singh, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shashank Saurav the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent State.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video
Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into
account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the
parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and
with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing
the punishment order dated 02.03.2016 and the appellate order dated
05.07.2016. The prayer for consequential benefit is also made.
4. The petitioner was appointed as constable in police service
and at present he is posted at Latehar. The petitioner was discharging his
duty with due sincerity and utmost integrity which has been stated in
paragraph-5 of the writ petition. While the petitioner was posted as a
reserve guard at Balumath Police Station, an application was made by the
Officer in charge to the respondent no.5 vide letter dated 14.10.2015 by
which allegation has been made that on 14.10.2015 the petitioner along
with other police officials was on patrolling duty and during the course of
patrolling they were reached at Tamtam Tola Road, the petitioner and
other persons stopped one tractor loaded with soil and received bribe
from the driver of the Tractor. Pursuant to the said charge, the petitioner
was show caused and the petitioner replied. The departmental
proceeding was initiated and in the departmental proceeding the
petitioner participated. The inquiry report has been submitted by the
inquiry officer wherein the petitioner has been exonerated. Thereafter,
the second show cause was issued by the disciplinary authority and the
disciplinary authority differing with the opinion of the inquiry officer has
passed the impugned order whereby punishment of withholding of
increment for six months equivalent to one black mark was inflicted upon
the petitioner. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has moved before this
Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
disciplinary authority without following due process as held in so many
judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts, has passed
the impugned order. He submits that while deferring with the enquiry
report the disciplinary authority has not given the reasons on disagreeing
and no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was provided. He submits
that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ' Punjab National
Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra' ,(1998) 7 SCC 84, paragraph no.19 of the said
judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be
that the principles of natural justice have to be read into
Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary
authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of
charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge,
it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and
give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent
before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer
containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the
delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the
disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the
enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have
already observed, require the authority which has to take a
final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity
to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation
before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the
charges framed against the officer."
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
State submits that there is grave charge against the petitioner and the
disciplinary authority has rightly passed the order.
7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this
Court finds that the inquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner from the
charges and the disciplinary authority has differed with the findings of
the inquiry officer as contained in paragraph no.14 of the counter
affidavit. While passing the impugned order, the disciplinary authority
has not followed the procedure as held by different judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the High Courts. In the light of the well
settled principles of law and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of 'Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra'
(supra), the impugned order is fit to be quashed. Accordingly, the same
is hereby quashed.
8. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/,
