Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 2 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 6662 of 2010
Sanjay Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through Video Conferencing
04/02.02.2022
1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent-State.
Arguments of the Petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ
petition has been filed challenging the major punishment forfeiture of
increment for 6 months, which would be effective in future as well
and further treated to be equivalent to one Black Mark upon the
petitioner. The punishment has been awarded by the Superintendent of
Police, Bokaro on 14.02.2009 in Departmental Proceeding No.
60/2008. The petitioner submits that the order of the appellant
authority, namely, D.I.G., Coal Range, Bokaro rejecting the appeal of
the petitioner on 09.06.2009 is also under challenge as the same is a
piece of complete non-application of mind.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1994. In the year
2008, while the petitioner was posted as Officer-in-charge of Chas
(Muffasil) P.S. in the District of Bokaro, a departmental proceeding
was initiated against him by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro on
the charges of investigating Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 18/2008 dated
01.03.2007 under Sections 395/397 of Indian Penal Code in wrong
direction and on calling two persons, namely, Nawin Tiwari and Ajay
Barnwal in police station for interrogation, even when, they were not
accused in the case and for harassing them. The learned counsel has
further submitted that the witnesses, namely, Nawin Tiwari and Ajay
Barnwal, who were said to be the victims of the acts of the petitioner,
have clearly denied the allegation and had stated that they were neither
assaulted by the petitioner nor kept in police lockup.
5. The learned counsel has submitted that the conducting officer in
his report has clearly stated that the allegation brought against the
petitioner was not supported by the victim witnesses and accordingly,
charges against the petitioner were not proved. The learned counsel
has submitted that in spite of aforesaid fact the conducting officer had
given an adverse finding by stating that when the petitioner was asked
as to why he had kept these two persons in the police station, the
petitioner had responded that he was hundred and ten percent sure that
Nawin Kumar Tiwari was involved in the case, but he had left Nawin
Kumar Tiwari and accordingly, the conducting officer found the
petitioner guilty of the allegations levelled against him. The learned
counsel has further submitted that the Superintendent of Police,
Bokaro while passing the punishment order did not take care to
scrutinize the findings of the conducting officer and ignored the
relevant portion and awarded aforesaid major punishment.
6. Learned counsel has also submitted that the punishment
awarded to the petitioner is in violation of Rule 832 of the Police
Manual and against under Section 7 of the Police Act, as such, the
punishment awarded by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro is
apparently illegal, void and fit to be set-aside. The learned counsel has
further submitted that even the appellate authority have not considered
these aspects of the matter and therefore, both the orders passed by the
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are fit to be
set-aside.
Arguments of the Respondents
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State,
on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has referred to a
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 9
SCC 471 (Prawin Kumar vs. Union of India) para 25 to 30 and
submitted that the scope of judicial review is very limited and both the
authorities have given concurrent finding with regard to the guilt of
the petitioner and the appellate authority has upheld the order of
punishment. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not
pointed out any illegality or irregularity, so far as the procedural
aspect is concerned and there is no scope for entering into the merits
of the case by re-appreciating the materials on record produced before
the enquiry officer and considered by the disciplinary authority and
upheld by the appellate authority. The learned counsel submits that
there is neither any manifest error of law or procedure resulting in any
injustice to the petitioner nor the present case is a case of bias or gross
unreasonableness of the ultimate punishment, which has been imposed
upon the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the order of
punishment against the petitioner is a result of his reckless acts as
indicated in the charge-sheet. He submits that in the charge-sheet, it
has clearly been mentioned that the petitioner was to take the call
details of a particular mobile number and had taken the call details of
another mobile number, which resulted in harassing two persons.
8. Learned counsel has referred to Section 7 of the Police Act and
also referred to Rule 824 of the Police manual under Chapter 25 and in
particular refers to Rules 824(e) which provides forfeiture of last
increment or future increments as one of the punishments which can
be awarded in a departmental proceeding. The learned counsel while
referring to Rule 832 of the Police Manual has submitted that the sub-
para of Rule 832 which has been relied upon by the petitioner is to be
read with Section 7 of the Police Act as Section 7 of the Act provides
that there can be penalty subject to maximum of one month's pay but
the present case is not a case of penalty but stoppage of increment as
punishment . He submits that there is no bar under the Police Manual
from awarding the punishment withholding 6 months with increments
having its effect till his entire service period. The learned counsel has
submitted that there is no illegality or perversity or irregularity or any
procedural lapse in the matter of the departmental proceedings or in
the matter of punishment awarded to the petitioner and accordingly,
the impugned orders do not call for any interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
9. Arguments concluded.
10. Post this case on 04.02.2022 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
