Bijali Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2008 Jhar

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2008 Jhar
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2021

Jharkhand High Court

Bijali Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 23 June, 2021

                                         1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P.(S) No. 4131 of 2013
                                 ---------

      Bijali Ram                                         ..... Petitioner
                               Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Dept. of Home, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

2. Director General of Police, At P.O. + P.S.-Dhurwa, District-

Ranchi.

3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dhurwa Region, P.O.+P.S.+District-Ranchi.

4. Deputy General of Police (Personnel), At P.O.+P.S.+District-

Ranchi.

5. Superintendent of Police, At P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-Ranchi.

..... Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Afaque Ahmad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Dev, A.C. to S.C (L&C)III

---------

08/Dated: 23rd June, 2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by

the petitioner praying therein for quashing the Order No. 1597

of 2004 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent no.5; whereby the

petitioner has been dismissed from service and also the

appellate order passed by respondent No.3, whereby the order

of punishment has been sustained.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the

petitioner has filed a detailed appeal before the appellate

forum, however in most mechanical manner the appeal has

been rejected and the contention of this petitioner has not

been considered that he was mentally ill and that is the

reason he was absent for a long time. He further submits that

he is confining his prayer only on the issue that the appellate

order should be reasoned and speaking order. In this regard

he referred to the judgment passed in the case of Chairman,

Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Versus A.

Masilamani as reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530, wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court at para 19 has held as under:-

"19. The word "consider" is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order."

4. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment he submits

that the respondent no.3 be directed to reconsider his order

which is completely non-speaking.

5. Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel for the respondent-

State submits that no error has been committed by the

disciplinary authority in removing the petitioner and though

the appellate order is not well described order; however, since

the order of punishment has given the reason, there was no

reason to discuss each and every point and reject the case.

The fact remains that the petitioner was on unauthorized

leave for almost 1 ½ years (441 days) as such no fruitful

purpose would be served in remitting the case back to the

appellate authority for passing a fresh order.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the documents annexed with the

respective affidavits and the averments made therein it

appears that when the petitioner was sent for training to Nath

Nagar on 01.03.1997, the Principle Police Training Centre

informed that on 25.10.1997 the petitioner absconded without

any information and after 441 days he came back.

7. It also appears that during the entire departmental

proceeding the conducting officer had given several

opportunities to the petitioner for submission of his

explanation, but neither the petitioner appeared nor

submitted his explanation and finally the impugned order of

dismissal has been passed, as such there was no procedural

irregularity in passing the order of termination.

8. However, by going through the appellate order, it

appears that the appellate authority has not given any reason

for rejecting the appeal. For better appreciation of the case the

operative portion of the appellate order is quoted herein

below:-

Þ-----vihy vH;kosnu esa ,slk dksbZ u;k Bksl rF; izLrqr ughs fd;k x;k gS ftlls ojh; iqfyl vf/k{kd jkWph }kjk ikfjr vafre vkns"k esa ifjorZu djus dh vko";drk gksA ojh; iqfyl vf/k{kd jkWph bl fo0 esa ikfjr lsok ls c[kkZLr djus ls lacf/kr vkns"k loZFkk mfpr ,oa U;k; gkssA vr% lsok ls c[kkZLr [email protected] fctyh jke }kjk lefiZr vH;kosnu dks ,rnz }kjk vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSk ß

9. By going through the appellate order, it appears

that it is totally non-speaking and none of the grounds taken

by the petitioner in his memo of appeal has been considered.

10. In this view of the matter, without interfering with

the order passed by the disciplinary authority; the appellate

order as contained in Memo No. 2150 dated 27.08.2004

(Annexure-6) is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter

is remitted back to the appellate authority-respondent no.3, to

pass a fresh order after considering the grounds taken by the

petitioner in his appeal.

Since the matter is very old, the fresh order shall

be passed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of