Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S. KUMAR, J.
Bikram Chaudhary Son of Sri Rohan Chaudhary - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.199 of 2006
Decided On : 02-07-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sangiv Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Apurv Harsh.
The requirement of high discipline in the police department and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Headnote:
Unauthorised Absence - Police Discipline - Bihar Police Manual, Rule 843 - Summary: The court discussed the unauthorised absence of the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, and the imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority. The court highlighted the serious nature of the misconduct, the requirement of high discipline in the police department, and referenced the case of Union of India and Ors vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (2005) 13 SCC 228 to support the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the police department, was proceeded departmentally for remaining unauthorised absent, retaining service revolver and cartridges, and adversely affecting the investigation of cases entrusted to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment imposed was commensurate and proportionate to the proven guilt, and there was no merit in the writ petition.
Issues: Unauthorised absence, disciplinary proceedings, proportionality of punishment
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of high discipline in the police department, serious nature of the misconduct, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without any cost.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 23.02.2003 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran at Chapra by which order of forfeiture of increment earned during service period and allowing petitioner to continue in service at the basic pay scale has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as order dated 30.06.2004 passed by the I.G. Police, Muzaffarpur dismissing the appeal of petitioner.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that petitioner was proceeded departmentally for remaining un-authorised absent from 25.06.2001. According to Town P.S. station diary dated 25.06.2001, petitioner proceeded to appear before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Vaishali, for his evidence in G.R. No. 1952/67 and where after he absconded and his whereabouts were not known to Town P.S. Chapra. He thereafter did not return. He did not return his service revolver and 35 live cartridges and remained un-authorised absence for a long period which also adversely affected the cases which were investigated by him. He was put under suspension on 04.01.2002.
4. Departmental Proceeding was initiated against petitioner for his un-authorised absence and memo of charge dated 08.01.2002 issued by S.P. Saran, Chapra, was sent at his home address through special messenger and same was received by his brother in presence of Mukhiya of the village but petitioner did not appear in the departmental proceeding. Dy. S.P. (H.Q) Saran, Chapra was appointed as Enquiry Officer giving rise to Departmental Proceeding No. 14 of 2002.
5. In course of departmental proceeding 1st show cause notice dated 29.01.2002 and thereafter notice dated 13.03.2002 was sent to petitioner to participate in departmental enquiry and to submit his defence statement and produce evidences in his defence. All steps were taken by the enquiry officer to serve notice upon petitioner but still he did not appear in the departmental proceeding and thereafter communique was also issued in daily newspaper Hindustan dated 25.03.2002 directing petitioner to appear in the enquiry proceeding but even after paper publication he did not appear. Thereafter memo dated 11.05.2002, memo dated 15.07.2002 and memo dated 03.08.2002 was sent to the petitioner but he did not appear, as such departmental proceeding was held ex-parte and departmental witnesses were examined in his absence.
6. Petitioner was a habitual absconder. He was proceeded under Rule 843 of Bihar Police Manual. Petitioner never inform about his continued absence to the department. Neither he sought any leave from department nor he was granted any leave by the department.
7. Petitioner never appeared before the enquiry Officer even after proper service of notice and paper publication and never brought to the knowledge of enquiry officer reasons for his continued absence and after final order was passed petitioner tried to justify his unauthorised absence on basis of medical certificates and pathological reports and tried to legitimise his unauthorised absence but same was never brought to the knowledge of inquiry officer as petitioner did not file his defence statement or participated in the enquiry proceeding even after having knowledge of the proceeding.
8. Petitioner never informed department, reasons for unauthorised absence and he was put under suspension on 04.01.2002 even thereafter he did not think proper to resume his duty and explain reasons for unauthorised absence. He did not made any correspondence with the department after he absconded from the police station.
9. Petitioner was issued 2nd show cause notice dated 17.09.2002 and 15.12.2002 and he submitted his reply to the 2nd show cause which was duly considered by the D.I.G., Saran Range, Chapra while imposing the order of punishment dated 20.03.2003 as a disciplinary authority. Order has been passed by the disciplinary authority after givin
