Jharkhand High Court
Ramanuj Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.6632 of 2011
-------
Ramanuj Kumar Verma ..... ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Division,
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum East, Chaibasa.
..... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. D.K.Dubey, Adv.
For the Res.State :Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.I
-------
12/05.10.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred
by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.03.2007
passed by the respondent No.4; whereby punishment for
stoppage of six increments has been imposed and also
against the order dated 07.04.2008 by which the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order
has been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the case is that while the
petitioner was posted as Officer In-Charge of the
Manoharpur Police Station, a case being Manoharpur P.S.
Case No.44/2005 was registered under Section 392 of the
IPC. The investigation of the said case was given to one Mr.
Ilias Kandulna, A.S.I of the said Police Station which is said
to be against the Standing Order No.2/2004 issued by the
Superintendent of Police dated 20.08.2004. As per the
Standing Order in any serious offence, the investigation is
to be entrusted to the Police Officer of the rank of Sub-
Inspector of Police but the investigation of the said case
was given to Mr. Ilias Kandulna, who was posted as A.S.I in
the said Police Station.
On the basis of the said allegation, a charge-
sheet has been issued against the petitioner for not
following the Standing Order No.2/2004. Thereafter, a
departmental proceeding was initiated against the
petitioner for the alleged misconduct and one Enquiry
Officer was appointed.
Finally, an order of punishment was imposed
upon this petitioner which was also challenged before the
Appellate Authority but the same was also rejected.
4. Mr. D. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the
petitioner fairly submits that in the entire departmental
proceeding; neither any witness was examined nor the
petitioner was given any opportunity to cross-examine any
of the witness and the Enquiry Officer has submitted its
report with the finding that the petitioner was guilty for the
alleged misconduct.
He further submits that the punishment of
stoppage of six months increment has been imposed upon
this petitioner which is admittedly a major punishment in
terms of Rule 835 of Jharkhand Police Manual. As such, on
the ground of procedural irregularities; the impugned order
suffers from infirmity and deserves to be quashed.
5. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the
respondent-State opposed the prayer of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner has moved before this Court
after a gap of three years and there is no explanation to the
effect that why the petitioner sat at rest after his appeal
was rejected. This action of the petitioner itself shows that
the order of appeal attained finality. However, he fairly
accepted the statement made in paragraph No.11 of the
counter affidavit that no witness has been examined and
no second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner
before imposing such penalty.
He lastly submits that the averment made in
para-11 is a new ground which the petitioner has raised
before this Court, inasmuch as; the said ground was not
taken either before the Disciplinary Authority or before the
Appellate Authority.
He further relied upon the judgment rendered in
the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage Board & Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in
(2014) 4 SCC 108 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be
lightly brushed aside.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing the relevant documents annexed with the
respective affidavits and the averments made therein; it is
an admitted case that the departmental proceeding was
initiated under Section 828(c) of the Jharkhand Police
Manual and in the entire departmental proceeding; no
witness has been examined to prove the documents,
whatsoever.
7. At the outset, I would like to deal with the
preliminary objection with regard to delay. From record it
appears that the appellate order was passed on 07.04.2008
and this writ petition has been filed in the month of
November, 2011, as such; admittedly there is delay of more
than three years. However, this delay is not as inordinate
for which the prayer of the petitioner should be brushed
aside; wherein it is an admitted fact that the punishment
imposed upon the petitioner is major in nature and also
Rule 828(c) has not been complied in true letter and spirit,
inasmuch as, no witness has been examined in this case.
8. The law is now well settled that even in an ex-
parte departmental proceeding the Enquiry Officer has to
prove the documents by adducing witness and if there is no
witness examined it will be deemed that the documents
have not been proved. In this background, this Court is
inclined to interfere with the punishment order.
9. Consequently, the punishment order dated
31.03.2007 and also the appellate order dated 07.04.2008,
are hereby, quashed and set aside.
However, the respondents would be at liberty to
initiate fresh enquiry pursuant to the charge strictly in
accordance with the Rules of Jharkhand Police Manual by
holding a full-fledged departmental proceeding.
It goes without saying that since the matter is
very old, as such if the department chooses to proceed with
fresh enquiry; the same shall be completed within a period
of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy
of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled
for all consequential benefits.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ
application stands allowed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
