Jharkhand High Court
Bishwanath Majee vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 23 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 4956 of 2015
Bishwanath Majee ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through Video Conferencing
13/23.02.2022
1. Heard Mr. V. P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Swapan Maji, Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.
3. In this writ proceedings the petitioner has prayed for quashing
Order dated 5.2.2015 passed by Respondent No. 4 in Departmental
Proceeding whereby the petitioner has removed the Petitioner from
Police Service and also prayed for quashing order dated 25.01.2016
passed by respondent no. 3 in Departmental Appeal No. 13/14
whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired with effect from
05.02.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the
impugned orders submits that the same has been passed in gross
violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that no
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the
witnesses.
5. Upon a query by this Court regarding a specific pleading in the
writ petition in connection with violation of principles of natural
justice, the learned counsel fairly submitted that no such specific plea
has been taken in the writ petition, but he refers to the Memo of
Appeal paragraph 15 and 16 which was filed before the appellate
authority, wherein a specific plea was taken that the petitioner was
present at the time of evidence of the three witnesses and the typed
copy of the witnesses were produced before him and he was asked to
sign on them and he was also told that he will not be permitted to
cross-examine any of the witnesses and if he would cross-examine
any of the witnesses, he will be dismissed from service.
6. The learned counsel further submits that the departmental
enquiry was not in accordance with law and he refers the order passed
by this Court on 20.12.2021, wherein his entire arguments were
recorded and the respondents were directed to produce the records of
the enquiry proceedings on the next date. He submits that the records
of the enquiry proceeding has not been produced but a supplementary
affidavit has been filed annexing some materials in connection with
enquiry proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that non-production of the records of the enquiry proceeding will go to
the advantage of the petitioner.
7. The learned senior counsel also submitted that as per the case of
the department, the petitioner was mentally unsound at the time and
place of occurrence and as the petitioner was mentally sound, it was
for the department to ensure that he is granted proper assistance at the
time of the departmental proceedings. He has also submitted that even
after the incident, the petitioner was given some work and was also
handed over the arms, but no untoward incident had happened.
8. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that
the incident had happened, but the counsel for the petitioner submits
that the appellate authority, who has ultimately imposed the
punishment of compulsorily retirement, should have imposed minor
punishment upon the petitioner and therefore, the punishment imposed
is disproportionate to the charges, considering the facts and
circumstances of this case as the specific case of the department was
that the petitioner was not of sound mind at the time and place of
occurrence. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner had
given a specific reason for the incident that he was deprived of
adequate sleep just prior to the date of incident because of the
continuous duty. The learned counsel submits that under such
circumstances, only a minor punishment should have been imposed
upon the petitioner and some duty without arms could have been
assigned to the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer and submits that no case for interference is made
out in the present case. He further submits that no specific plea has
been taken by the petitioner regarding any violation of principles of
natural justice in the writ petition. The learned counsel also submits
that the departmental proceeding has been conducted strictly in
accordance with law and admittedly, the petitioner had appeared in the
departmental proceeding, on the date on which the witnesses were
examined. He also submits that the allegation which has been levelled
at the appellate stage in para 15 and 16 is highly disputed and devoid
of merits and no such point has been taken even in the writ petition
also. He also submits that no such enquiry can be conducted under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India as to whether the petitioner
was threatened to not cross-examine the witnesses and as to whether
the petitioner was forced to sign any deposition. The learned counsel
submits that the scope of interference in departmental proceeding is
very limited and there is very serious allegation levelled against the
petitioner and in spite of that, already a lenient view has been taken by
only compulsorily retiring the petitioner. He submits that the present
writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
10. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
onus is on the department to prove that the departmental proceeding
was conducted in accordance with law irrespective of the specific plea
having been taken in the writ petition. He has also submitted that all
the witnesses were examined one after the another in one day, which
itself violates the principles of natural justice.
11. Arguments concluded.
12. Post this case on 07.03.2022 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
