Jharkhand High Court
Pravesh Chandra Sinha Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.5559 of 2018
----
Pravesh Chandra Sinha son of Late Gopal Singh, permanent resident of
Sheo Prakash Banerjee Road, Post Barganda, Police Station Giridih Town,
District Giridih.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Division,
Dumka.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Deoghar.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC IV
Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC IV
----
6/ 11.10.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the order contained
in Memo No.2658/Go dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition),
communicated vide letter contained in Memo No.2510 dated 09.08.2017, by
which the appellate authority has rejected the appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as contained
in Memo No.2157/Go dated 10.05.2017 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) by
which annual increment of the petitioner for six months has been
stopped/withheld.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no
ground to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. He submits
that though the case diary was called for, but, it was the duty of the
Investigating Officer to send the Case Diary to the High Court for consideration
in A.B.A. No. 621 of 2016. He submits that since the petitioner had given
instructions to the Investigating Officer to forward the Case Diary, he cannot
be said to have committed any misconduct. He submits that if there is any
fault, it lies on the part of the Investigating Officer. He submits that punishment
of stoppage of annual increment of the petitioner for six months has been
inflicted upon the petitioner. He submits that the punishment inflicted is
equivalent to one black mark and the same is disproportionate and excessive.
4. Counsel for the respondents submits that repeated information
was given to the petitioner to transmit the Case Diary to the High Court, which
he failed to comply. He submits that being the Officer-in-charge, it was his duty
to ensure that the Case Diary reaches the High Court within the reasonable
time, but he failed to ensure the same. In fact, he was given several
reminders, but he failed to comply the orders. He delayed the entire process
as in the Anticipatory Bail Application, there was an interim order in favour of
the petitioner therein. Thus, the punishment is appropriate and cannot be said
to be disproportionate.
5. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the writ petition and
the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in this case.
6. I find that the petitioner was the Officer-in-Charge of Mohanpur
Police Station. Case Diary was called for in A.B.A. No. 621 of 2016 by the
High Court. The said information was communicated to the petitioner, but the
petitioner did not take appropriate steps so that the Case Diary reaches the
High Court in time. A chargesheet was issued to the petitioner for dereliction of
duty. From the chargesheet, it is clear that vide communication contained in
memo (i) D.B. No.311 dated 30.04.2016, (ii) D.B. No.447 dated 02.06.2016,
(iii) D.B. No.571 dated 23.07.2016, (iv) D.B. No.686 dated 07.09.2016, (v) D.B.
No.922 dated 18.11.2016, reminders were sent to the petitioner to ensure that
the Case Diary is sent to the High Court and a report to that effect was to be
forwarded to the higher officials by the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to do
so, for which chargesheet was issued. A proper departmental proceeding was
initiated and after giving full opportunity, he was punished. I find no irregularity
or illegality in the departmental proceeding.
7. In the case of Union of India versus P. Gunasekaran reported in
(2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court in
exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence.
8. In the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection
Force and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey, reported in 2020 SCC
Online SC 954, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by referring to the decision in the
case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao, at paragraph
33 has held as follows: -
33. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, a
three judge bench of this Court held that the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a court of
appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is not
the function of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction
to review the evidence, and arrive at an independent
finding on the evidence. The High Court may, however
interfere where the departmental authority which has held
the proceedings against the delinquent officer are
inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, where
the findings are based on no evidence, which may
reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge, or in violation of the
statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry, or the
authorities were actuated by some extraneous
considerations and failed to reach a fair decision, or
allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
considerations, or where the conclusion on the very face
of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived at that
conclusion. If however the enquiry is properly held, the
departmental authority is the sole judge of facts, and if
there is some legal evidence on which the findings can
be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is
not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed
before the High Court in a writ petition.
9. Further, from the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that under Article
226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not :-
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case
the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to
be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.
10. Further, in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate
Authority) and Others versus Ajay Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2
SCC 612, it has been held that the power of judicial review, of the
constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision making process and not
the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to
ensure fairness of conclusion.
11. While going through the records of this case, I find that none of
the grounds, as set forth, are made out in this case. Punishment is also not
shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. Thus, I find no ground to
interfere with the order of the appellate authority contained in Memo
No.2658/Go dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition), communicated
vide letter contained in Memo No.2510 dated 09.08.2017, or the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority as contained in Memo No.2157/Go dated
10.05.2017 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) by which annual increment of the
petitioner for six months has been stopped/withheld.
12. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
