SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Pat) 550

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
A.K. Ganguly, J.
Shyam Deo Singh – Petitioner
vs.
The State of Bihar & ors - Respondents
C.W.J.C. No. 6012 of 1992
Decided On : 6.8.1998

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Teg Bahadur Singh, Ram Hriday Prasad, Dharbendra Kumar & Pranav Kumar.
For the Respondents: M/s. R.K. Datta, Shambhu Kumar & Ajit Kumar Sinha.

The punishment imposed on a delinquent must be commensurate with the gravity of his misconduct.

Headnote:

POLICE ACT, 1861 - SECTION 8 - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT - REMAND FOR RECONSIDERATION OF QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a police constable, was dismissed from service for absence from duty for 22 days. He challenged the dismissal order on the grounds that the departmental proceeding was conducted improperly and unfairly, that he was not served with a copy of the enquiry report, and that the punishment was disproportionate to the offence.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was required to be present in the police line and attend the enquiry, and that he could not take advantage of his own failure to attend the enquiry. The court also held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

Issues: 1. Whether the departmental proceeding was conducted improperly and unfairly. 2. Whether the petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report. 3. Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the offence.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was required to be present in the police line and attend the enquiry, and that he could not take advantage of his own failure to attend the enquiry. 2. The court held that the question of non-furnishing of the enquiry report was a disputed question and could not be decided on the basis of the evidence before it. 3. The court held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met by remanding the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by remanding the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Ganguly, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his order of dismissal as also the order passed by the appellate and the revisional authority confirming the said order and also the final order passed by the Director General of Police (Annexure-6) on his memorial. The charge against the petitioner is one of disobedience of command and remaining absent for 22 days.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceeding which was conducted against the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid charges was conducted improperly and unfairly and illegally without intimating the date of examination of the prosecution witness Ram Ratan Singh and without supplying him copy of the deposition and without fixing the date of examination of defence witnesses. The petitioner has stated in paragraphs 6, 9 and 14 of the writ petition that the Enquiry Officer suppressed the real position and claimed to have sent intimation at the home address of the petitioner whereas the petitioner was attending the police line learned counsel further submitted that the finding of the Enquiry Officer has also not been served upon him. Such non-furnishing of the enquiry report amounts to breach of Appendix 49 which contains the rules for proceedings for departmental punishment and sub-para (iv) of para 7 of the said Appendix provides that a copy of the findings of the conducting officer should be given to the delinquent without delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-compliance of the said rules makes the proceeding liable to be set aside. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of dismissal for absence of 22 days is very harsh and disproportionate to the offence and this Court should quash the same.

3. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Thakur Ram vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1991 (2) PLJR page 324. In the said judgment in the case of Thakur Ram (supra) the learned Judges of the division Bench held that since notice was not properly served in the departmental proceeding on the concerned Government servant, there has been denial of reasonable opportunity to show cause in the said disciplinary proceeding and the finding of the enquiry officer and order of the disciplinary authority are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon various un-reported decisions of this Court which have been disclosed by way of supplementary affidavit to the writ petition. Those judgments, mainly, are concerned with the question of quantum. In one of those judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 701 of 1995 (Bishwanath Ram vs. State of Bihar and others) the learned Judge set aside the order of punishment which was passed for absence from duty for 34 days. The learned Judge also quashed the appellate order and held that the petitioner is entitled for the salary for the entire intervening period in accordance with law and made it clear that the respondents, however, are at liberty to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law commensurate with the allegations as mentioned in the charge-sheet.

5. There is another judgment passed by another learned Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 6130 of 1996 (Jay Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Others) disposed of on 26.3.1998. There also one of the learned Judge of this Court while dealing with the disciplinary proceeding against the 'police constable for absence of 119 days, was pleased to observe that the punishment of dismissal against the petitioner was harsh and was quashed. His Lordship held that it should be substituted by withholding one increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted this Court to follow the aforesaid two decisions of this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on another judgment of the Division Bench














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top