The State Of Jharkhand vs Bhim Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1106 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
         L.P.A. No. 392 of 2021
         with I.A. No. 7483 of 2021
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Budget), Ranchi
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau
5. The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa
                                    ...    ...   ...   Appellants
                        Versus
Bhim Singh              ...       ...   ...      ...     ...   Respondent
                        ---------
CORAM:       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                        ---------
For the Appellants:     Ms. Amrita Banerjee, A.C. to G.P.-I
For the Respondent:     Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate
                        Mr. Ram Subhag Singh, Advocate
                        ---------
05/Dated: 14.03.2023

      Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

passed the following, (Per, S.K. Mishra, C.J.)

                   ORDER

1. By filing this intra court appeal, the State of Jharkhand and

others have challenged the order dated 13.07.2021, passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4529 of 2015. The writ petition

was filed by the petitioner challenging his dismissal from service vide

Memo No. 1353 dated 22.05.2021 and also quashing the order

passed by the appellate authority-respondent no.4 to the writ

application vide Memo No.1311 dated 27.11.2001, whereby the

appeal preferred by the private respondent was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable and joined the

services on 18.01.1984 and he was given first time bound promotion

in the year 1994. On 14.11.1995, he joined the post of Constable in

district headquarter, Garhwa. He also held the post of Office bearer of

the District Police Men's Association.

On 30.12.1995 an F.I.R. was lodged by the Officer-in-charge of

Garhwa Police Station against the petitioner alleging that on the same

day at Bazar Samittee, Garhwa, in course of election of Office bearers

of Bihar Police Men's Association, sound of firing was heard from the

northern barrack of the office due to which Election Officer started

dispersing and upon interrogation it could be known that the petitioner

had fired from his licensee rifle with a view to disturb the election

process.

In contemplation of the activity, a departmental proceeding

being D.P. No. 44/96 was also initiated against the petitioner and

charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 14.12.1996. The

petitioner filed reply and participated in the departmental proceeding

and the Inquiry Officer found charges against the petitioner to be

proved and finally an order of termination from service has been

passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner had earlier moved

this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 4 of 2002, which was disposed of with

a liberty to the petitioner to prefer a memorial before the Director

General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand to decide the

claim. He again moved before this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.661 of

2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2015 directing

the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand to

decide the memorial and pass a speaking order in accordance with

law.

Thereafter, the memorial was also dismissed. In the meantime,

the criminal case was concluded and as per the judgment dated

29.06.2005 in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2003, the Court of the learned

1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa acquitted the petitioner-

respondent. We have taken note of the exact observations made by

the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa, which is quoted

as under:-

"10. On the other hand defence has examined one witness Udai Kumar Rai who has deposed that he was also a candidate for Treasurer in the Police Mense Association election for year 1994-95. No incident of firing ever happened in the course of that election. Prior to occurrence Bhim Singh was Chairman of Police Mense Association and this witness was Secretary. In course of his evidence he has proved Ext.2 which shows that in accordance with application of Bhim Singh dated 31.12.95 his rifle was deposited in Shastragar. It bears the signature of Bhim Singh and endorsement receipt under signature of the then Sergeant major Awadh Bihari Singh. He has also proved letter dated 12.2.98 Ext.A/1 written by Bhim Singh addressed to Provisional Chairman Bihar Police Mense Association and letter dated 27.7.98 (Exts. A/2) written by Bhim Singh to Provincial Chairman, letter dated 30.7.98 (Ext. A/3) addressed to I.G. Police (Administration) Patna, Bihar in respect of transfer of certain constables who are alleged to be in collusion of local extremist group. Ext.A/4 letter dated 23.3.98 written by Provincial Chairman, Bihar Police Mense Association to I.G. Bihar, Ext. B Order dated 31.3.98 of A.I.G.(W), Bihar, Patna, in respect of relieving those police men who have already been transferred in reference to letter no. 376 dt. 23.3.98 by Bihar Police Mense Association.

Thus evidence led by defence Exts. A to A/4 and Ext. B clearly shows that at the relevant time of occurrence licencee rifle of present accused was deposited in Shastragar and being active member of Bihar Police Mense Association present accused reported about collusion of local constables with the extremists organization and relieving order of certain constables was not complied with by the then S.P. The matter was again reported to Chairman Provincial Police Mense Association. Thereafter even after earlier submission of Final Form against present accused, further investigation was sought for and charge-sheet was submitted on 28.2.99 wherein suspected constables are made witnesses of occurrence. In view of aforesaid documentary evidence led by defence the possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be over ruled. In my view in the instant case accused has been made escape goat of circumstances by high level police officers in order to save their own

skin as well as erring constables which is against the prestige of police department and condemned.

10. In view of aforesaid discussions and appreciation of evidence available on record adduced from both sides, I am of the conclusion that prosecution worsely failed to establish the charges levelled against accused Bhim Singh. In absence of cogent and reliable evidence, I am constrained to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, accused Bhim Singh is acquitted from the aforesaid charges, he appears on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds and set at liberty forth-with."

Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid observations that not only

the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Garhwa has come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all

reasonable doubts against the present respondent. He has made a

categorical finding that Exhibits-A to A/4 and B clearly shows that at

the relevant time of occurrence the licencee rifle of the petitioner-

accused was deposited with the Shastragar and being an active

member of the Bihar Police Men's Association, present accused

reported about collusion of local constables with the extremists

organization and relieving order of certain constables was not

complied with by the then Superintendent of Police, Garhwa.

It has been further observed that in the instant case, the

accused has been made scapegoat of circumstances by high level

police officials in order to save their own skin as well as erring

constables which is against the prestige of Police Department.

3. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the

respondent has been honourably acquitted of the offences. In fact,

certain observations have been made against the senior police

officers by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and it is not in

dispute that no appeal was preferred by the State of Jharkhand to this

Court against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent would rely upon the

judgment in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and others,

(2006) 5 SCC 446, wherein the facts of the case are almost similar.

The employee was proceeded departmentally as well as

criminal case was initiated and the Hon'ble Supreme Court took into

consideration that departmental proceedings and the criminal case

are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a

departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the

criminal court are one and the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

further held that such facts and evidence in the departmental as well

as criminal proceeding were the same without there being any iota of

difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction, which is

usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on

the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable

in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic

enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an

honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the

proceedings, challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken

note of and the decision rendered in the case of Capt. M. Paul

Anthony Vs Bharat Cold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in

(1999) 3 SCC 679 shall apply.

5. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that since

charge in a departmental proceeding against the delinquent employee

and the charge before the criminal court are one and the same and

the evidences are also same, the order passed by the learned Single

Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

6. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this Letters Patent

Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

7. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

9. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.

(S.K. Mishra, C.J.)

(Ananda Sen, J.) APK/VK