Jharkhand High Court
Ram Nagina Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1684 of 2019
----
Ram Nagina Prasad Yadav S/o Paras Nath Yadav, R/o Village Dandahi,
PO, PS & District Bhojpur.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi.
4. Superintendent of Police, Khunti.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate
Ms. Sharda Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG III
----
6/ 17.10.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. This writ petition can be disposed of on the small question of law,
which has been raised by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that
before inflicting major punishment, second show cause notice enclosing a
copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner, thus, principles of
natural justice has been violated, which makes the impugned order of
punishment bad in law.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, admittedly punishment,
which is inflicted upon the petitioner is major. The law demands that a second
show cause notice should have been served upon the petitioner supplying a
copy of the enquiry report and in absence of the enquiry report and second
show cause notice, major punishment should not have been inflicted upon the
petitioner. He submits that a specific plea has been taken at paragraph 24 of
the writ petition to this effect and the same was not controverted in the counter
affidavit.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits
that the petitioner appeared and participated in the departmental proceeding,
thus, he cannot take the aforesaid plea. She further submits that no prejudice
has been caused to the petitioner by not supplying the enquiry report.
5. Considering the legal issue, which has been raised in the writ
petition, it is not necessary to go into the factual details. The factual aspect,
which is necessary for disposing of this writ petition is being taken note of.
Petitioner is an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. He was directed to submit
Case Diary before the High Court. He presented the Case Diary, but, as the
same was illegible, again a direction was given to give a legible copy of the
Case Diary by 09.03.2017. Allegation against the petitioner is that he did not
furnish the same before the High Court. On the aforesaid allegation a
departmental proceeding was initiated. Departmental chargesheet was
submitted against the petitioner to which he replied and denied the allegations
taking a ground that legible typed copy of the Case Diary was not even
handed over to him for submitting before the High Court. Further he took a
ground that neither he was the Investigating Officer nor he had written the
Case Diary.
6. After receipt of reply, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the
charge was enquired. The Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report on
24.07.2017. The said enquiry report is Annexure 3 to this writ petition. After the
enquiry report was submitted, petitioner was punished vide order dated
23.09.2017 as contained in Memo No.1358. A departmental appeal was
preferred by the petitioner and the same was also dismissed vide order dated
06.02.2019 as contained in Memo No.341.
7. To appreciate the ground raised by the petitioner, I have gone
through the entire writ petition and the counter affidavit. At paragraph 24 of the
writ petition, petitioner has taken a plea that the respondents have not
provided the copy of the conclusion report nor given an opportunity to submit
final explanation. Petitioner thereby trying to mean that the enquiry report was
not submitted to him nor second show cause notice was issued. Though this
Court, vide order dated 5th March, 2020 directed the respondents to file
counter affidavit, yet in the counter affidavit I find no reply to paragraph 24 of
the writ petition. In the entire counter affidavit, the statement and submission
made in paragraph 24 of the writ petition has not been controverted.
8. Further, when I go through the order of punishment, I find that
there is a reference that the petitioner has filed reply to the show cause
including final show cause, but the reply, which the petitioner is said to have
submitted is dated 08.04.2017 and 04.05.2017. These replies cannot be said
to be reply to second show cause notice, as the enquiry report itself is dated
24.07.2017.
9. From a conjoint reading of the punishment order with the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents and the statement made in paragraph 24 of
the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner was not served with second show
cause notice along with the enquiry report.
10. The issue has now been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in a decision in the case of ECIL versus B. Karunakar reported in (1993) 4
SCC 727. Thus, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of ECIL (supra), this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order of
punishment, vide order dated 23.09.2017 as contained in Memo No.1358 as
also the order passed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.02.2019
as contained in Memo No.341 are set aside. Matter is remitted to the
Disciplinary Authority to start the proceeding after giving second show cause
notice and after giving enquiry report to the petitioner and proceed in
accordance with law.
11. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
