Jharkhand High Court
Ainul Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 24 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 887 of 2018
--------
Ainul Soren .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi.
2. The DGP, Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The DIG, JAP at Rani Kothi, Doranda, Ranchi.
4. The Commandant, JAP-5, Deoghar. Respondents.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the petitioner(s): Mrs. Rajlakshi Mishra, Advocate.
For the State: Ms. Archna Kumari, AC to AAG-V
--------
07/24.11.2022: The petitioner has been punished in a departmental proceeding No.
12/2015 vide order as contained in Memo No. FO-237/16 dated 23.2.2016.
2. The petitioner was a constable and he was on compensatory leave
from 25.12.2014 to 31.12.2014. The charge against the petitioner is that he did
not joint his duty after 31.12.2014. Another charge, which has been levelled
against the petitioner is that he got involved in Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 10/2015
registered for the offence under Sections 386, 387, 435 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code as he had tried to extort Rs.25,000/- from one M/s M.L. Jain Company. The
charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner which was followed by a regular
Departmental Proceeding. The Enquiry report dated 25.11.2015 was submitted by
the Inquiring Officer holding the petitioner to be guilty. On the basis of the said
report, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No. FO-237/16 dated
23.2.2016.
3. Admittedly, after the dismissal order was passed, the petitioner was
acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case vide judgment dated 5 th August, 2016 in
G.R. No. 74/2015 (T.R. NO. 1618 of 2016).
4. I have gone through the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry
Officer. The witnesses were examined during the enquiry process and the
petitioner was found guilty of both the charges. So far as second charge with
regard to extortion of money is concerned, on the basis of pendency of criminal
case, the petitioner was held to be guilty. Admittedly, the punishment order was
passed before the judgment in the criminal case, which was ended in acquittal.
5. The witnesses in the departmental proceeding were only the police
officials. None came forward to depose and prove the case in the departmental
proceeding that the petitioner had tried to extort any one. The extortion was
proved in the departmental proceeding just because the criminal case was
pending against the petitioner. Thus, there was no independent evidence in the
departmental proceeding to suggest that the petitioner was involved in trying to
extort money. When there is acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, the
aforesaid charges is bound to fail as there was no independent evidence to prove
the aforesaid fact in the departmental proceeding.
6. So far as first charge of overstaying is concerned, it is the defence of
the petitioner that the petitioner fell ill and thereafter when he was on the way to
join, he was arrested.
7. Be that as it may, for overstaying, the punishment of dismissal is too
harsh. Though the scope of interfering in the departmental proceeding is limited
yet the fact cannot be lost sight of that where the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate, this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, can interfere with the punishment order.
8. In this case as held earlier, the second charge fails with the acquittal
of the petitioner, and so far as first charge of overstaying is concerned, the
punishment of dismissal is too harsh and it does not commensurate to the proved
misconduct.
9. Considering the aforesaid fact, I set aside the order of punishment
dated 23.2.2016 and remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a
fresh order on the quantum of punishment within four weeks from the date of this
order.
10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
