Dhanu Ram Soren @ Bali Ram Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 4971 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dhanu Ram Soren @ Bali Ram Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 May, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                  W.P.(S) No. 364 of 2023


            Dhanu Ram Soren @ Bali Ram Soren, aged about 47 years, Son of
            Late Meghram Soren, Resident of Village- Salgadih (Salgaria), P.O.
            and P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Seraikella Kharsawan.
                                                         ...     ...     Petitioners
                                      Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, office at Project
            Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Dist.- Ranchi,
            Jharkhand
            3. The Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa,
            District- West Singhbhum.               ...      ...       Respondents
                                      ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

            For the Petitioner        : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
                                      : Mr. Rajiv Lochan, Advocate
            For the Resp.-State       : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG
                                      ---

10/07.05.2024           Learned counsel for the parties are present.

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

"For quashing of Memo No. 104 dated 13.01.2014 issued by respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of dismissal dated 13.01.2014 has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. He submits that the petitioner was facing a trial under Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code in GR Case No. 520 of 2010 corresponding to Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 24 of 2010. In connection with the said case and prior to his conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody.

4. The learned counsel submits that the respondents issued charge memo dated 05.12.2013 and served the same to the petitioner in the jail. The petitioner had responded to the said charge memo from the jail itself and thereafter, the respondents initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner remained in jail and in the meantime, the reply given by the petitioner from jail was taken

as his defense in the departmental proceedings. He has also submitted that one witness was also examined in the departmental proceedings and no opportunity of cross-examination was extended to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel has further submitted that once the respondents knew that the petitioner was in custody, they ought to have taken appropriate steps to ensure that natural justice is complied with while conducting the departmental enquiry, or they ought to have waited till the petitioner was released from custody. The learned counsel submits that for the reasons beyond his control, the petitioner could not participate in the departmental proceedings.

6. The learned counsel submits that after the submission of reply, no further communication was received by the petitioner as is apparent from the counter affidavit itself. He submits that the petitioner has been ultimately convicted in the criminal case vide Judgment dated 21.02.2013 and an appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction which is pending before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is no longer in jail custody and his appeal is pending before this court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2013.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the fact that the petitioner was in custody and that the petitioner had not given any intimation to the respondents regarding the criminal case lodged against him, is almost admitted by the petitioner. However, it is not in dispute that at no stage the petitioner could participate in the disciplinary proceedings which is apparent from the enquiry report as contained in Annexure- C to the counter-affidavit.

9. The counter-affidavit also reveals that the charge memo was served upon the petitioner in jail and the reply of the petitioner was also received from jail under covering letter of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds

that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was an accused in the aforesaid criminal case being GR Case No. 520 of 2010 corresponding to Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 24 of 2010, and the charge memo was issued to the petitioner for disciplinary proceedings on 05.12.2013 (Annexure-2). The records reveal that the charge memo was served to the petitioner while the petitioner was in jail and a reply to the same was also forwarded to the respondents through the jail authority. Upon receipt of the reply by the petitioner, the respondents chose to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and enquiry was conducted.

11. The enquiry report has been placed on record by the respondents through the counter affidavit. The enquiry report reveals that the petitioner did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings. The evidence of the witness of the respondents was recorded and consequently there was no occasion for the petitioner to cross-examine the witness. The reply of the petitioner which was sent from jail was taken as his defense statement and on the basis of the materials collected during enquiry, the petitioner was held guilty and was dismissed from service by the impugned order.

12. This Court is of the considered view that once the respondents knew that the petitioner was in custody, it was open to them to ensure compliance of principles of natural justice by taking appropriate steps so that the petitioner could participate in the disciplinary proceedings, but no such step was taken and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted at the back of the petitioner.

13. As per the records, it appears that the petitioner claimed to have taken leave to attend his mother, but thereafter he did not join the duty and he was taken into custody.

14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law on account of gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play in as much as the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to participate in the disciplinary enquiry for reasons beyond his control and the respondents did not take enough care to ensure participation of the petitioner in the

disciplinary enquiry even when they knew that the petitioner was in custody. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned action and order calls for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the impugned order of dismissal is hereby set aside on account of gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. However, liberty is reserved with the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in relation to charge memo dated 05.12.2013 in accordance with law.

15. In order to enable the respondents to proceed against the petitioner pursuant to charge memo dated 05.12.2013, the petitioner shall appear before the Respondent No. 3 on 01.08.2024. Upon his appearance, the Respondent No. 3 shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

16. It is further made clear that the impugned order of dismissal has been set aside only on account of gross violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, at this stage, no consequential relief is being granted to the petitioner. The consequential relief, if any, would ultimately depend upon the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and appropriate order with regards to such claim be also passed by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law.

17. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

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

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj