Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Kumar Ram vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1264 of 2012
Suresh Kumar Ram ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police,
Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Range, Bokaro,
P.O. P.S. & District-Bokaro.
4. Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, P.O. P.S. & District-
Bokaro. ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Bobby, A.C. to G.A.I
---------
20/Dated: 23rd March, 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 and setting
aside the order dated 16.06.2010 passed by the disciplinary
authority; whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from
service. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated
08.09.2010 passed by the appellate authority and the order
dated 30.12.2011 passed by the revisional authority;
whereby the order of dismissal of the petitioner has been
sustained.
3. Among other grounds, learned counsel for the
petitioner argued on the question of quantum of
punishment. He contended that even assuming the alleged
charge to be proved, then also dismissal from service is not
proportionate punishment. He further relied upon the order
passed in the case of Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Others [W.P.(S) No. 1861 of 2008] and
submits that the same is applicable in the instant case,
inasmuch as, in the instant case also there is charge
against the petitioner of being drunk; however, the
petitioner was not medically examined during the
departmental enquiry.
He further submits that the officer-in-charge
under whom the F.I.R. was lodged has also not been
examined which clearly transpires from the enquiry report.
In this view of the matter, the case may be
remitted back to the respondent-authorities to reconsider
the case only on the issue of quantum of punishment in the
light of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1861 of 2008, wherein
this Court has remanded the matter to the disciplinary
authority to pass a fresh order on quantum of punishment.
4. Ms. Priyanka Bobby learned counsel for the
respondent-State supports the impugned orders and
submits that there is no procedural irregularity and the
witness who has not been examined was not due to the
fault of the Inquiry Officer; rather every effort was taken by
the Inquiry Officer to call that officer in charge. Further the
Inquiry Officer has dealt every aspect of the matter which
has been accepted by the disciplinary authority.
On the question of quantum of punishment,
she submits that even in past the petitioner was found
guilty as he was a habitual drunkard. Relying upon the
aforesaid submissions; she submits that the instant
application deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the documents available on record
and the averments made in the respective affidavit, it
appears that the petitioner has been dismissed from service
after a proper departmental proceeding. It further
transpires that there is no procedural irregularity in the
proceeding and principles of natural justice has been duly
followed. However, from last paragraph of the impugned
order it appears that even prior to this incident; the
petitioner has been found guilty of being drunk and
punishment has been imposed upon him.
In view of this fact, the ground of the petitioner
that the petitioner was not medically examined during the
departmental proceeding appears to be worth
consideration, inasmuch as, the order of punishment has
taken note of the fact that the petitioner is a habitual
drinker. In this regard reference may be made to paragraph
5 of the judgment passed in the case of Arun Kr. Singh
(Supra) wherein this Court has held as under:-
"5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that though the charge against
the petitioner is of being drunk, the petitioner was not
medically examined during the departmental enquiry.
Except one Shiv Lal Shaw, no other witness was
produced by the department and therefore, the enquiry
officer has reached at a wrong conclusion that the
charge levelled against the petitioner stood proved. He
has relied on various orders passed against other
employees who were awarded lesser punishments for
charge of firing gun-shots."
After going through the aforesaid order, it
appears that this Court after giving several findings
remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for
a fresh consideration in so far as the quantum of
punishment is concerned. It also appears that the
petitioner has taken several grounds in his reply to the
second show cause-notice with regard to cross-examination
of witnesses; however the same was not considered in the
impugned order.
6. Be that as it may; dismissal of a person only on
the ground of taking liquor which has also not been
medically proved in the enquiry proceeding; relying with the
order passed in the case of Arun Kumar Singh (Supra), I
am of the opinion that impugned order of punishment and
the subsequent orders deserve to be quashed and the issue
of dismissal may be reconsidered only on the question of
quantum of punishment.
Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment
dated 16.06.2010 and the subsequent orders are quashed
and set aside as the order of dismissal is not proportionate
with the charge in the background of the aforesaid findings.
The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary
authority to pass a fresh order after considering with the
second show cause reply given by the petitioner within a
period of four months from the date of receipt/production
of copy of this order. It goes without saying that the
respondent shall pass the fresh order of punishment after
re-appointing the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation and direction;
the instant writ application stands partly allowed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
