Jharkhand High Court
Police - 724 - Aounkar Kumar Om S/O Brij ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6497 of 2016
Police - 724 - Aounkar Kumar Om S/o Brij Bihari Prasad Singh -
R/o - Village - Bihari Bigha P.O. - Bihari Bigha, P.S. - Pandark,
District - Patna (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, at project Bhawan, at P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District -
Ranchi
3. The Director General of Police cum - Inspector General Jharkhand
Ranchi, Project Bhawan HEC, Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
4. The Inspector General of Police (Training) - Project Bhawan,
HEC, Building P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Jharkhand
5. The Commandant Jharkhand Armed Police, (JAP - 8) lesliganj,
Palamu, P.O. & P.S. - Lesliganj, District - Palamu, Jharkhand
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police - J.A.P. Jharkhand
Ranchi, At - HEC Building, Sector - 2, P.O. & P.S. - Jaganathpur,
District - Ranchi, Dhanbad
7. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police,
Jharkhand Ranchi, at Nepal House, Raja Rani Khoti, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District - Ranchi ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Syed Naushad Ahmad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA I
---
10/02.02.2024 Learned counsels for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) for issuance of appropriate writ/ rule/ direction for
quashing order whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from
service second time for the same cause of action as contained in
memo no- 21/Go dated 28.03.2012 issued under the signature
Respondent no-5, Commandant Jharkhand Armed Police, (JAP-8)
Lesliganj, vide annexure-6 in Departmental proceeding no- 07 of
2011 which is contrary to the order dated 01.03.2011 of Respondent
no-3( Appellate Authority) The Director General of Police Cum-
Inspector General Jharkhand, who already quashed the first order of
dismissal from service passed against the petitioner by the
respondent no-5 vide annexure-2 and in that order it was held by
respondent no-3 that an enquiry should be held in order to decide
the issue of entitlement between the period of dismissal to date of
reinstatement (back wages). The respondent-5 being subordinate
authority virtually overridden the findings of respondent no-3 being
superior authority and exceeded his power and jurisdiction.
(ii) For quashing the order of appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the order of dismissal dated 28.03.2012 before the
respondent no-6, Deputy Inspector General of Police -J.A.P.
Jharkhand Ranchi, contained in memo no- 1194/ General section
dated 28.05.2015 which affirmed the order of dismissal vide
annexure-8 series communicated by reason of order dated
10.06.2015 vide memo no- 1130/ R.O in Departmental proceeding
no- 07/2011.
AND
Further prays for order / orders, directions to respondents
particularly the respondent no-6 to reinstate the petitioner in service
in accordance with the order of Appellate authority respondent no-3
who quashed the first order of dismissal from service passed against
the petitioner. And to decide the payment the entire back wages with
continuity of service to the petitioner.
For order/ orders/ or direction in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case as your lordship deem fit and proper."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceeding which was
initiated vide disciplinary proceeding no.15 of 2008 and ultimately the
matter was placed before the respondent no.3. The punishment
imposed against the writ petitioner was set aside on ground of
violation of principle of natural justice and other considerations, and
liberty was given to initiate fresh proceeding. The petitioner was
directed to be reinstated in service. Consequently, the petitioner was
reinstated on 21.03.2011. The learned counsel submits that thereafter
another departmental proceeding was initiated which was numbered as
departmental proceeding no.7 of 2011 wherein one Diwashankar
Prasad was made the inquiry officer who submitted an inquiry report
exonerating the petitioner by giving a report his favour and stating that
the charges against the petitioner were not proved in the inquiry
report. The learned counsel submits that thereafter the disciplinary
authority appointed another inquiry officer namely Birsa Ram
Khalkho and he submitted another inquiry report finding the petitioner
guilty. The learned counsel submits that so far as the 2nd inquiry report
in the disciplinary proceeding no.7 of 2011 is concerned, the
complainant was not examined and, therefore, the charge cannot be
said to have been proved. He has also submitted that there is no reason
for not examining the complainant. The learned counsel has submitted
that since the charge was regarding stealing of money of the
complainant, it was incumbent upon the respondents to examine the
complainant and the complainant having not been examined, the entire
proceeding is vitiated. The learned counsel has also submitted that a
2nd show cause notice was issued to the complainant but very short
time was granted and he could not file a response to the 2 nd show
cause notice and ultimately the petitioner has been dismissed. The
learned counsel has submitted that the appellate authority and the
revisional authority have also not considered this aspect of the matter
and, therefore, the present writ petition is fit to be allowed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 6
SCC 376 (Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others vs. Jai
Bhagwan) and also a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.(S) No.3971 of 2012 decided on 03.09.2012. The
learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1248 of 2013 (Swami
Bibhu Deo Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others) dated 29.11.2013
to submit that once an inquiry report has been submitted there was no
justification for the disciplinary authority to appoint another inquiry
officer.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on
the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that so far as
the initial inquiry is concerned, the matter was remanded for initiation
of fresh inquiry and, thereafter, the fresh inquiry was initiated vide
departmental inquiry no.7 of 2011. The learned counsel has referred to
the inquiry report submitted pursuant thereto and has submitted that
the inquiry was not properly conducted and even the documents were
not perused. The manner in which the inquiry was conducted was
totally unsatisfactory and consequently the disciplinary authority
appointed another inquiry report. The learned counsel submits that the
order by which the disciplinary authority appointed another inquiry
officer has been filed along with the supplementary counter-affidavit
dated 07.12.2023. He refers to Annexure - A thereto and has
submitted that the disciplinary authority has asked for fresh inquiry
vide endorsement dated 22.10.2011 clearly citing the reasons for the
requirement of 2nd inquiry. From perusal of the subsequent inquiry
report, the learned counsel submits that though the complainant was
not examined but there were other evidences produced on record and
the petitioner was totally non-cooperative inasmuch as he did not even
furnish his defence statement before the inquiry officer. The learned
counsel submits that in such circumstances, the inquiry officer rightly
held the petitioner guilty. The learned counsel has also submitted that
the witnesses had also deposed that the petitioner was willing to pay
half of the amount which was taken away by the petitioner which
itself indicated that the petitioner was guilty of the charges which were
levelled against him. The learned counsel has submitted that the
petitioner did not even respond to the 2nd show cause reply and,
therefore, the impugned orders do not call for any interference.
6. Arguments concluded .
7. Post this case for judgment on 12.04.2024.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
