Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 2227
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
Ramesh Prasad S/o Late Mohan Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secy., govt. Of Bihar, Patna
CWJC No. 15458 of 2005
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
The main legal point established is that dismissal orders should consider the circumstances under which appointments were made, especially in cases where appointments were made in extraordinary circumstances to reward bravery.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Police Constable Appointment - The court quashed the dismissal order of a police constable, emphasizing that the appointment was made in extraordinary circumstances to reward the petitioner's bravery in fighting crime, and therefore, the dismissal was a mechanical order without proper consideration of the facts and circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a peon at a branch office of L.I.C., was appointed as a constable by the Superintendent of Police as a reward for his bravery in apprehending criminals. However, he was later dismissed along with others for not following due procedure in appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal order was a mechanical decision without proper consideration of the circumstances under which the appointment was made, and that the petitioner's appointment was made in extraordinary circumstances to reward his bravery.
Issues: The issues involved the dismissal of the petitioner and others for not following due procedure in appointment, and the contention that the appointment was made in extraordinary circumstances to reward bravery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal was unjust as it did not consider the extraordinary circumstances under which the appointment was made, and that the petitioner's appointment was valid and made to discourage crime and encourage citizens to stand against criminals.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application, quashed the dismissal order, and directed the petitioner's reinstatement.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Vide order dated 30.6.2003 contained in Annexure-7, the petitioner alongwith many other constables appointed at a different time frame came to be dismissed from service. The dismissal order states in all the cases that the concerned persons were not appointed on the post of constable by following due procedure. It is in this background the petitioner has filed this writ application since even his appeal came to be rejected vide order contained in Annexure-10.
3. Submission in the writ application is that the order of dismissal has come to be passed without following any procedure or a finding recorded in this regard that the appointment of the petitioner was for extraneous reason or not following the procedure as has been stated in Annexure-7.
4. According to the petitioner he was working as a peon in the branch office of L.I.C. at Bettiah when dacoity took place on 30th August, 1997 and large amount of money was looted from the branch. The petitioner showed exemplary courage and his brave act led to the arrest of two criminals including recovery of some of the money so looted. For the incidence a police case also came to be instituted and the narration in the FIR would corroborate the said fact.
5. Looking at the exemplary behaviour of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Bettiah, a district known for its criminal activity at that point of time decided to set an example by appointing the petitioner on a post of constable. This was done with a view to send a message to the masses that if they stood against criminals they will be rewarded as the petitioner was. Petitioner started working on appointment but by one stroke of pen the order of dismissal came to be passed. His case was also clubbed with many others who had been appointed for other reasons and not in the background under which the appointment of the petitioner came to be made. The stand of the petitioner is that since this appointment was made for valid and cogent reason with a specific object, therefore it was not a case of back door appointment as may have been the case of others. But without taking all these facts into consideration as well as giving an opportunity to the petitioner the order of termination alongwith many other persons, who were appointed in different districts, came to be treated as one class and the order of termination was passed.
6. Learned counsel for the State take a stand that the procedure laid down in Police Manual specially Rule 66 1(b) had not been followed. Since it was not done, the appointment had been presumed to be illegal and such illegal appointment deserved termination, which has been done in this case alongwith other cases of illegal appointment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner however brings to the notice of this Court that his appointment was beyond Rule 66 1(b). The appointment of the petitioner had been made in extraordinary situation in the given context with the object of discouraging criminals and encouraging the citizens to rise against crime. Petitioner was made a hero of the district by giving such an appointment but now ignonimity has been thrust upon him by dismissal. Award of bravery given by one has been taken away by other and that too for no fault of his because there is no allegation that his performance and duty was not up to mark.
8. Once the appointment was made the petitioner became a permanent employee and the procedure in this regard for removal had to be followed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 18.7.07 passed in CWJC No. 12407 of 2006 which was the case of Awadh Bihari Singh V/s. State of Bihar & Others. In similar kind of circumstance the order of dismissal had been interfered with by learned Single Judge and it was held that the reason for dismissal was misplaced and erroneous. In fact the punishment was held to be disproportionate in the abovestated circumstance.
10. Be that as it may
