Jharkhand High Court
Gorelal Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 September, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.6571 of 2022
-------
Gorelal Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Ram
Charitra Singh, R/o Village and P.O Mano, P.S.
Suryagarha & District Lakhisarai (Bihar). ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having his
office at Jharkhand Police Headquarters, Dhurwa,
P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed
Police, having his office at Jharkhand Police
Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District
Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand
Armed Police, having his office at Jharkhand Police
Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District
Ranchi.
5. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-5,
Deoghar, having his office at Deoghar, P.O., P.S. &
District - Deogarh. .......Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Adv.
For the Respondents : Ms. Pinki Tiwary, AC to AG
.
-------
11/Dated:02.09.2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred
by the petitioner for the following relief:-
(I) For quashing the order contained in memo no.
356 dated 08.10.2009 (Annexure 3) issued under the
pen and signature of respondent no. 5 whereby and
where under the punishment of dismissal has been
inflicted upon the petitioner.
(II) For quashing the order contained in memo no.
1394 dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure 5) issued under the
pen and signature of respondent no. 4 whereby and
where under the appeal of the petitioner against the
order of dismissal has been rejected.
(III) For quashing the order contained in memo no.
200 dated 25.08.2021 (Annexure - 8) under the pen
and signature of respondent no. 3 whereby and where
under the memorial/revision of the petitioner against
the order of dismissal & appellate order has been
rejected.
(IV) For commanding upon the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and to
grant all consequential benefits.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner
was appointed on 19.08.1988 as a Constable in
Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP)-5, Deoghar and started
discharging his duty with utmost sincerity to the
satisfaction of his superior authorities. The petitioner
was put under suspension vide Force Order No. 647/09
dated 11.04.2009 alleging inter alia that on 04.04.2009
the petitioner after loading the chamber of the Rifle
started abusing Havaldar Angad Choudhary and said
that he will shoot him and accordingly the petitioner was
asked to submit his explanation. Thereafter, the
petitioner submitted his explanation on 03.05.2009
categorically denying the allegations leveled against him.
Subsequently, a Departmental Proceeding No.
23/2009 was initiated against the petitioner by serving
memo of charge dated 02.06.2009 on the aforesaid
allegation of abusing the Havaldar Angad Choudhary who
was not present on duty and pointing Rifle on the
policemen.
The petitioner submitted his show cause and
denied the charges leveled against him and stated that
false & frivolous allegations have been leveled against
him at the instance of Karu Manjhi, Manan Khan, Vijay
Chandra Jha and Shyam Narayan Pandey and also that
he has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the
memo of charge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the enquiry officer in a wrongful & perverse manner and
without appreciating the reply/stand of the petitioner has
submitted enquiry report dated 14.07.2009 and found
the petitioner guilty of the charges and while observing
that the petitioner is guilty of the charges; the enquiry
officer has gone beyond his jurisdiction and had
proposed that the petitioner should not be continued in
service meaning thereby that the petitioner shall be
dismissed or removed from service. Such action of
proposing punishment by the enquiry officer is illegal and
without jurisdiction.
He further submits that the petitioner was
issued the second show cause and the petitioner
submitted the reply dated 12.09.2009 before the
respondent no. 5 against the perverse finding of the
enquiry officer and further prayed for exoneration of the
charges. The disciplinary authority (respondent no. 5),
however, dismissed the petitioner from service vide memo
no. 356 dated 08.10.2009 without considering the show
cause reply of the petitioner and by relying upon the
enquiry report and in fact by just reiterating the enquiry
report and by not applying his mind.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal
dated 18.01.2010 before the Appellate Authority
(respondent no. 4). The appellate authority dismissed the
appeal of the petitioner vide memo no. 1394 dated
10.09.2010 without considering the grounds of appeal
and by just reiterating the contents of the order of
dismissal & enquiry report and the appellate authority
has not applied his mind and no independent reasoning
has been assigned for rejecting the appeal of the
petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal and
the appellate order, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No.
4168/2010 and the same was disposed of vide order
dated 16.12.2020 with a direction to the petitioner to file
memorial/revision before the respondent no. 3 and the
respondent no. 3 shall decide it on merit and pass a
reasoned order.
Pursuant to order dated 16.12.2020, the
petitioner filed revision/memorial dated 18.01.2021
before the respondent no. 3 under Rule 853 of the Police
Manual. The revisional authority (respondent no. 3) also
without considering the revision application of the
petitioner and by solely relying upon the contents of the
order of dismissal & appellate order dismissed the
revision application of the petitioner vide memo no. 200
dated 25.08.2021.
As such it can be easily inferred that the
impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority,
appellate authority and revisional authority are
reiterations and copy paste of enquiry report and the said
authorities have not applied their independent mind and
have acted in a mechanical and casual manner and no
reasoning has been assigned in the impugned orders.
He lastly submits that the disciplinary officer
has not appointed any Presenting Officer to present the
case of the Department before the Enquiry Officer and
the Enquiry Officer has assumed the position of the
Presenting Officer and has acted in a prejudiced manner.
Accordingly, the impugned order of dismissal
from service is disproportionate, excessive, harsh and do
not commensurate to the charges leveled against the
petitioner. As such the same requires interference by
setting aside the dismissal order of the petitioner as the
action of the respondents to impose major punishment is
erroneous, illegal and arbitrary without following the
provisions of Rule 828 of the Police Manual and the
entire departmental proceeding is bad in the eyes of law
on the ground that the explanation/reply submitted by
the petitioner in his defense has not been considered at
all.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent tries to
justify the impugned orders by reiterating the stands as
taken in the counter affidavit.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the documents available on
record it appears that the enquiry officer has acted
beyond jurisdiction by proposing that the petitioner is
not fit to be continued in service; meaning thereby,
petitioner should be dismissed or removed from service;
whereas the law is well settled that the enquiry officer is
only required to ascertain from the proceedings that
whether the charges alleged against the delinquent is
proved or not.
As a matter of fact, the enquiry officer is not
supposed to act as the representative of the department;
rather he has to act as an arbitrator with the only duty of
ascertaining the fact and proving the charge or not
proving the same. It is not the role of enquiry officer to
hold the delinquent guilty.
In the instant case, after going through the
enquiry report it appears from the last paragraph
wherein it has been held by the enquiry officer that the
delinquent is useless and can commit crime at any stage;
which is certainly beyond his jurisdiction as he is not
supposed to give his opinion with regards to punishment.
For brevity, the relevant part is extracted hereinbelow:-
आरोपित पिभाग के पिए बोझ है ये ककसी भी समय कानून हाथ
मे िेकर जघन्य काण्ड कर सकते है। ऐसे िुपिस कमी को पिभाग
मे रहने से पिभाग की छपि खराब हो सकती है एिं प िपि
व्यिस्था की समस्या खडा हो सकती है।
7. Similar issue came for consideration before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttranchal
and Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC
236 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at para-18 has held
that though there is no specific bar in offering views by
the enquiry officer in the case in hand, the enquiry officer
exceeded his limit by saying that the officer has no right
to continue in government service and he has to be
dismissed from the service with immediate effect.
For brevity para-18 of the aforesaid judgment
quoted hereinbelow:-
"18. Another infirmity in the report of the enquiry officer
is that he concluded the enquiry holding that all the
charges have been proved and he recommended for
dismissal of the delinquent from service. The last
paragraph of his report dated 16-11-1985 reads as
under:
"During the course of above inquiry, such facts
have come into light from which it is proved that
the employee who has doubtful character and
does not obey the order, does not have the right
to continue in the government service and it is
recommended to dismiss him from the service
with immediate effect."
(emphasis supplied)
Though there is no specific bar in offering views
by the enquiry officer, in the case on hand, the enquiry
officer exceeded his limit by saying that the officer has
no right to continue in the government service and he
has to be dismissed from service with immediate
effect."
8. It further transpires from the enquiry report
that the reply filed by the petitioner during course of
enquiry proceeding, the enquiry officer has just stated
that the same is not worth to be considered and ignored
all the grounds taken by the delinquent in reply and the
same was not considered; rather a general statement has
been given by the enquiry officer that the same is not
worth.
9. It further transpires from perusing the order
passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority
and the revisional authority; all of them have just quoted
the finding of the enquiry officer but did not apply their
mind on the issue and ignored the lacuna committed by
the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority himself
would have gone into the reply and analyzed the entire
charges, which is absent in the instant case; rather the
disciplinary authority completely admitting the
suggestion of enquiry officer.
At this stage, it is worth mentioning that
dismissal from service in service jurisprudence can be
considered as a capital punishment; as such the law
imposes duty on the disciplinary authority to apply his
mind while passing the order of dismissal. In the case at
hand, the disciplinary authority had simply quoted the
entire part of the enquiry report and without applying his
own mind issued the order of dismissed.
The same lacuna has been committed by the
appellant authority as well as revisional authority.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the
order of dismissal as contained in memo no. 356 dated
08.10.2009 (Annexure 3) issued by the respondent no. 5,
is hereby, quashed and set aside and the respondent is
directed to reinstate the petitioner in service henceforth.
However, the respondents would be at liberty
to initiate fresh proceeding against this petitioner for the
same charges mentioned in this case; however, the same
should proceed in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, the instant writ application
stands allowed with the manner stated herein above.
Pending I.A.s, if any, also closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
AFR
