Patna High Court
Manish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 24 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 8015 of 2023
======================================================
Manish Kumar Son of Sri Lalan Prasad Singh Permanent resident of Village-
Tetarpur, P.S- Tekari, P.O- Panchanpur, District- Gaya, Presently residing at
Kamla Apartment, Flat No. 104, Kurji Balupar, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police (Headquarter), Personnel and
Welfare Division, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Personnel and Welfare
Division, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Personnel and Welfare
Division, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Inspector General of Police (Central Range), Patna.
7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
8. The Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Patna.
9. The City Superintendent of Police (West), Patna.
10. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.
11. The Station House Officer -cum- Police Inspector, Beur Police Station,
District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Abhinav Srivastava, Sr Advocate with
Mr Ravi Kumar Panday, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG III
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-02-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner
seeking the following reliefs:
"a) To quash order of punishment
dated 15.12.2022 as contained in Memo No 798
Patna High Court CWJC No.8015 of 2023 dt.24-02-2025
2/9
dated 20.12.2022 in Disciplinary Proceeding No
88 of 2021 issued by the Respondent No 2 (who
was not the Disciplinary Authority) whereby and
where under the Petitioner was awarded
punishment of compulsory retirement in a most
mechanical and arbitrary manner without
following the procedure prescribed under the
relevant Rules or complying with the principles
of natural justice.
b) For a direction upon the
Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner and
grant all consequential benefits including
payment of salary, other benefits and continuity
in service.
c) To pass any other order/orders in
shape of a consequential relief to which the
Petitioner may be found to be legally entitled to
in the facts and circumstances of the instant
case at hand.
(d) To quash the Appellate Order as
contained in Memo No 11670 dated 26.09.2023
issued by the Home Deportment (Police
Branch), Government of Bihar, Patna whereby
and where under memorial of appeal and
supplementary memorials filed by the petitioner
against the order of punishment dated
15.12.2022
as contained in Memo No 798 dated
20.12.2022 (Annexure P/8 to the writ
application) was rejected in a most mechanical
and arbitrary manner without following the
procedure prescribed under the relevant Rules
or complying with the principles of natural
justice against the petitioner."
2 Brief facts of the case are that initially, the petitioner
was appointed on 12.02.2009 on the post of Police Sub Inspector.
He joined his services on 18.02.2019. His services were
confirmed on 02.08.2012. subsequently, he was granted pomotion
Patna High Court CWJC No.8015 of 2023 dt.24-02-2025
to the post of Police Inspector on 02.12.2018. At the relevant time,
i e in the year 2021, he was posted as SHO -cum- Police Inspector,
Beur Police Station. On 29.12.2020, an FIR being Beur PS Case
No 368 of 2020 was registered upon a written complaint of the
informant against six named accused persons for the offence
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506, 448, 379/34 of
the IPC. It was alleged in the FIR that named accused persons
assaulted and abused the wife of informant. The case was handed
over for investigation to Sub Inspector Raj Kishore Rai. During
the course of investigation, the wife of the informant died. Being
an SHO, the petitioner supervised the said investigation and
prepared his supervision note vide Memo No 232 of 2021 dated
27.01.2021. Subsequent to that, four named accused persons were
arrested. Later on, the said case was again supervised by
Additional Superintendent of Police, Phulwarisharif and the case
was found to be not true and appropriate proceedings under
Sections 182/211 of the IPC was recommended against the
informant. Thereafter, a show cause was sought from the
petitioner by the Senior SP, Patna vide Memo No 2502 dated
16.05.2021 alleging therein that due to wrong supervision of the
case by the petitioner, four innocent persons were wrongly taken
into custody. Show cause was replied by the petitioner and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8015 of 2023 dt.24-02-2025
subsequently, without considering the reply submitted by the
petitioner, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him vide
Memo No 1577 dated 14.07.2021 issued by respondent No 6. The
SP (Traffic) (respondent No 8) was appointed as the enquiry
officer and the Additional SP, Phulwarisharif (respondent No 10)
was appointed as the presenting officer. After completion of
enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report. It was
found by him that all the charges against the petitioner were
proved. The disciplinary authority issued the second show cause
notice to the petitioner which has been replied by the petitioner
and, thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 15.12.2022, the
disciplinary authority passed the order of major punishment, i e,
compulsory retirement from the services against the petitioner.
This order has been assailed by the petitioner which has also been
rejected by the appellate authority vide its order dated 26.09.2023.
Hence, this petition.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in
the enquiry proceeding, the enquiry officer did not give the proper
opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses. On the
contrary, the petitioner was only allowed to ask written question
from the witnesses. Therefore, there is a clear cut violation of
principles of natural justice present here. He further submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.8015 of 2023 dt.24-02-2025
the defence taken by the petitioner was neither considered by the
enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority. In his defence, it
was categorically mentioned by the petitioner that the bail
application preferred by the four accused persons were rejected by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III in Beur PS
Case No 368 of 2020. It was observed by the Court that the police
official submitted final form in the case despite there being
incriminating material like statements of witnesses and medical
evidence on record. Learned counsel submits that the final form
(closure report) submitted by the police has not been accepted by
the concerned trial Court. Thus, it is well established that the
petitioner has given his supervision note as per the material
available on record, i e statements of witnesses as well as medical
evidence. Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned orders
passed by the respondents are liable to be set aside. Lastly, he
submits that the entire allegation levelled against the petitioner in
the charge memo is taken as it is then also it cannot be said to be a
misconduct rather it is a negligence or innocent mistake of the
petitioner. Reliance has been placed by the counsel on the
judgment passed by this Court in LPA 900 of 2024 in the case of
State of Bihar & Others -Versus- Md Muttafique Ahmad.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8015 of 2023 dt.24-02-2025
4 Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5 I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the
parties. Perused the entire material available on record.
6 Perusal of the charge memo clearly shows that the
only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he has
submitted a wrong supervision note, therefore, four persons were
wrongly taken in custody. This charge was found proved by the
enquiry officer. However, the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by
the learned ACJM III, Patna (Annexure P/13) clearly shows that
the trial Court rejected the bail applications submitted by the four
accused persons and it was observed by the Court that there is
sufficient evidence (oral statements and medical evidence)
available on record against the accused persons. This fact has also
been mentioned by the petitioner in his reply to show cause before
the enquiry officer but the enquiry officer as well as the
disciplinary authority did not consider the above.
7 Perusal of the charge memo also shows that with the
charge memo, along with imputation of charges, list of documents
and list of witnesses were also supplied to the petitioner. There
were five witness cited by the Department. The enquiry report
further shows that though the above cited witnesses were
Patna High Court CWJC No.8015 of 2023 dt.24-02-2025
examined by the enquiry officer but they were not cross examined
by the petitioner rather the enquiry officer allowed the petitioner to
ask written questions from the witnesses which is evident in
paragraph 3 of the enquiry report. It further shows that on the
direction given by the enquiry officer, the petitioner submitted
written questions to be asked from the witnesses but except the
confidential interpreter of the Senior SP, none of the witnesses
have replied the said question. Thus, it is clear that proper
opportunity of cross examining the witnesses have not been
provided to the petitioner.
8 Perusal of the charge memo further shows that the
only allegation against the petitioner is that he prepared a wrong
supervision note and, therefore, the four innocent persons were
taken in custody. In the considered view of this Court, the above
allegation levelled against the petitioner if taken as it is, then also
it does not amount to any misconduct rather it appears to be an
innocent mistake. It would be pertinent to mention here that the
concerned trial Court, while rejecting the bail application of the
four accused persons, has categorically observed that there was
sufficient material (oral evidence as well as medical evidence)
available on record to implicate the accused persons in the alleged
crime. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner wrote a
Patna High Court CWJC No.8015 of 2023 dt.24-02-2025
wrong or faulty supervision note. Dealing with the issue, a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar &
Others -Versus- Md Muttafique Ahmad (supra) observed and
held at paragraph 26 as follows:
"26. The judgment by the learned
Single Judge has dealt with all the charges and
the incorrectness of the conclusion in great
detail. The misconduct of a police officer for
attracting punishment has been enunciated
clearly by the Supreme Court in Inspector Prem
Chand v Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors 2007 (4)
SCC 566. in the aforenoted judgment reference
has been made to the judgment in Union of
India v J Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286 which
indicates that a conduct would be blameworthy
only in the context of the Conduct Rules and if it
is stated to be a misconduct. Misconduct means
action arising from ill-motive. Acts of
negligence or an error of judgment or innocent
mistake would not constitute any misconduct."
9 In the light of the above observations made by the
Division Bench of this Court, on examination of the facts of this
case, it is quite clear that the alleged act done by the petitioner was
only said to be an act of negligence or error or innocent mistake.
It cannot be constituted to be any misconduct.
10 For the reasons mentioned herein above and for the
reasons as discussed earlier, I am of the view that the impugned
orders dated 15.12.2022 and 26.09.2023 are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, both the orders are hereby quashed and set aside.
11 This writ petition is allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8015 of 2023 dt.24-02-2025
12 The respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner, if the petitioner has not superannuated and give all
consequential benefits to him for which he is entitled to.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
