Jharkhand High Court
Anand Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5088 of 2012
Anand Kumar Singh... .....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand.
3. Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range, Daltonganj.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa. .....Respondents.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate.
For the State: AC to AAG.
------
13/24.02.2023: By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order
dated 28.5.2010, whereby the Disciplinary Authority had inflicted the punishment
upon the petitioner on conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. Further the order
dated 15.6.2021 is also under challenge, whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed
the appeal of the petitioner. The Revisional Order is also under challenge. The
punishment was of forfeiture of increment of one year, which was treated to be
equivalent to two black marks.
2. The petitioner was Officer-in-Charge of Majhiaon Police Station. The
allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he illegally brought three brothers of
one Lal Bahadur Singh to the Police Station at night and kept them in illegal
confinement in Hazat of the police station and released them on 26.12.2009 after
taking bribe. On the aforesaid allegation, the chargesheet was submitted against the
petitioner. A Departmental Equiry was conducted, wherein full opportunity was given
to the petitioner.
3. The enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer finding the
allegation of taking bribe not to be correct, however the allegation of confining three
persons illegally in the Hazat for some time was found to be correct. As the part of
the charge was proved, based on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority
inflicted the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment, which is equivalent to
two black mark. It is pertinent to mention herein that the second show cause notice
was given to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment is
disproportionate to the proved charge. He further submits that when the Enquiry
Officer found the allegation of taking bribe is false, the Disciplinary Authority could not
have punished the petitioner, as the basis of the charge is found to be false. He also
submits that the Enquiry Officer has also concluded that those persons were not
confined for the whole night, rather they were left free to go after some time.
5. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner is challenging the
punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. In exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specially in judicial review, scope of
interference by this Court in a departmental proceeding is very limited. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force
and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954
at paragraph 37, thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court cannot act as
an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the
enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh
versus S. Sree Rama Rao, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court to review on the findings
and arrive at a different decision. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited
and it is well settled that the High Court can interfere amongst other, only when the
departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the
findings are based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided.
6. Considering the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have
gone through the entire writ petition.
7. The charge against the petitioner is that he had brought three brothers of
Lal Bahadur Singh illegally in the Police Station and thereafter confined them for
whole night and released them after accepting bribe. The Enquiry Officer found that
the allegation of taking bribe is not correct and he also concluded that they were not
kept for whole night rather they were left to go after some time.
8. From the aforesaid enquiry report, at least, the fact, which has been
proved is that those three persons were brought illegally to the police Station and
were confined, may be for a limited period. Keeping a person in confinement by a
police officer illegally violates the basic human rights of a citizen. From the enquiry
report, it is established that the allegation definitely constitutes a misconduct i.e. the
petitioner has illegally confined three persons. Whether they were confined for whole
night or for some period is immaterial, but the fact remains that there was illegal
confinement at the instant of this petitioner. Thus, the charges levelled against the
petitioner has duly been proved in the departmental proceeding. Thereafter the
petitioner was punished after the following the procedure of law. The punishment is of
stoppage of one annual increment, which is equivalent to two black mark. this
punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved charge.
9. Since there is no illegality or irregularity in the entire process and the
punishment is not shocking disproportionate to the proved charge, based on the
evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned.
10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
