Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3189 Jhar

                                        1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         W. P. (S) No. 3969 of 2021

             Sunil Kumar, Aged about 45 years, son of Late Shyamdeo Singh.
             Resident village and P.O. Achhua, P.S. Dulhin Bazar, District
             Patna (Bihar)                            ...    ...       Petitioner
                                   Versus
          1. The State of Jharkhand
          2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police
             Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
          3. The Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand, Ranchi,
             Police Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
          4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Singhbhum, Kolhar
             Range, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar, District West
             Singhbhum at Chaibasa
          5. The Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar,
             District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
                                                ...       ...        Respondents
                                   ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to GP II 06/28.08.2023

1. The learned counsels for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), commanding upon the Respondents, for quashing of the order dated 26.07.2021 (Annexure-9), passed under the Memo No. 110/D by the Inspector General of Police (Training), the Respondent No. 3 as well as for quashing of the Order dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure-8), passed by the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Departmental Proceeding No. 39 of 2005, whereby and where under the order of punishment of dismissal of the order of petitioner remained intact despite the order of this Hon'ble Court as passed in W.P. (S) No. 4729 of 2009 dated 04.02.2021 and the petitioner further prays for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all consequential benefits.

And/Or For issuance of further writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner along with co-accused, namely, Shankar Prasad Singh were subjected to criminal proceeding for alleged offence under Sections 341, 342, 376/511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 2005 and were ultimately acquitted by the

learned trial court vide judgment dated 27.07.2005. He has submitted that the informant of the case as well as the two alleged victims was declared hostile before the learned trial court.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that on the same set of allegations, departmental proceeding was also initiated against both the persons and both of them were dismissed from service. The following table will show the comparative sequence of events in connection with the present petitioner and Shankar Prasad Singh: -

Present petitioner Shankar Prasad Singh

Order of dismissal was challenged Order of dismissal was challenged in in W.P. (S) No. 4729 of 2009 W.P. (S) No. 4848 of 2009

The writ petition was disposed of The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.02.2021, vide order dated 06.09.2016 and the wherein the order of punishment as matter was remitted back after well as the appellate order was set- recording that there has been aside and the matter was remitted violation of principles of natural back to the disciplinary authority justice by the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter and pass as the order of punishment was an appropriate order in accordance passed without supplying a copy of with law only on the quantum of the enquiry report and it was also punishment. observed that considering the charges proved, the punishment awarded was harsh and shockingly disproportionate.

The fresh order of punishment of Again, an order of dismissal was dismissal has been passed vide passed which was challenged in W.P. Memo No. 1845 dated 16.06.2021 (S) No. 7262 of 2019. which is impugned in this writ petition. The appeal has also been dismissed vide the other impugned order dated 26.07.2021. Both the orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

Vide order dated 19.07.2022 passed by this Court, the order of dismissal was again set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Respondent no.5 for fresh consideration only on the quantum of punishment with an observation that he will not be entitled to any wages during the intervening period.

Vide Memo No. 2993 dated 24.12.2022, interalia, punishment of withholding of two increments has been made and he has already been reinstated in service.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition and pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 7262 of 2019, Shankar Prasad Singh has been imposed punishment of withholding of two increments with analogous directions and has been reinstated in service. A copy of the order passed in the case of Shankar Prasad Singh has been annexed as Annexure-11 along with the rejoinder which is contained in Memo No. 2993 dated 24.12.2022.

6. The learned counsel submits that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the impugned order of dismissal has been passed vide Memo No. 1845 dated 16.06.2021 pursuant to the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4729 of 2009 and during the pendency of this case lesser punishment has been imposed upon Shankar Prasad Singh who is similarly situated as that of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner and Shankar Prasad Singh is on identical footing and, therefore, the matter may be remanded back for fresh consideration on the point of quantum of punishment and parity in treatment as compared with Shankar Prasad Singh.

7. The learned counsel has submitted that the fresh order of dismissal and the appellate order which are impugned in the present case were passed on 16.06.2021 and 26.07.2021 respectively, and the fresh order in the case of Shankar Prasad Singh has been passed thereafter on 24.12.2022 pursuant to order dated 19.07.2022 in W.P. (S) No. 7262 of 2019.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner as well as the Shankar Prasad Singh were subjected to criminal proceeding on similar allegations and both of them were acquitted by the learned trial court on account of the fact that the material witnesses had turned hostile and the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It further appears that both petitioner and Shankar Prasad Singh were subjected to disciplinary proceedings and both of them were dismissed from service. Both of them had challenged their order of dismissal in two different writ

petitions. The present petitioner had challenged it in W.P. (S) No. 4729 of 2009 and Shankar Prasad Singh had challenged it in W.P. (S) No. 4848 of 2009.

9. So far as the case of Shankar Prasad Singh is concerned, this Court while disposing of the writ petition on 06.09.2016 clearly observed that there was violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, a copy of the enquiry report was not submitted and had also observed that the order of punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against him and consequently, the order of dismissal of Shankar Prasad Singh was set- aside by this Court and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and thereafter, a fresh order of dismissal was passed in the case of Shankar Prasad Singh which was subsequently challenged in W.P. (S) No. 7262 of 2019 and vide judgment dated 19.07.2022, the order of dismissal of Shankar Prasad Singh was again set-aside in view of the earlier observations made by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4848 of 2009 and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration only on the quantum of punishment with some more observations. Now, during the pendency of this case, a fresh order has been passed in the case of Shankar Prasad Singh modifying the punishment vide Memo No. 2993 dated 24.12.2022.

10. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, his order of dismissal was set-aside vide order dated 16.06.2021 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4729 of 2009 and the fresh order of dismissal is under challenge in this writ petition. During the pendency of this case, lesser punishment has been imposed upon Shankar Prasad Singh and he has also been reinstated in service.

11. The petitioner is claiming parity in the matter of quantum of punishment with compared to Shankar Prasad Singh by claiming that even in the stage of departmental proceeding, the findings in connection with Shankar Prasad Singh as that of the present petitioner were identical. However, this aspect of the matter is required to be examined by the disciplinary authority.

12. In order to enable the disciplinary authority to consider the plea of parity in the matter of punishment, the impugned order dated

16.06.2021 and also the appellate order dated 26.07.2021 are set- aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 5 to pass a fresh order on the quantum of punishment after comparing the records of Shankar Prasad Singh and the present petitioner relating to the disciplinary proceedings. In case, the findings in connection with Shankar Prasad Singh and the petitioner are found to be similar in the disciplinary proceedings then there can be no justification to award different punishment.

13. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to any wages during the intervening period.

14. The needful be done by the respondent No. 5 by passing a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav