IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Shivaji Pandey, J.
Pratima Kumari, D/o Shashi Kant Tiwari and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 23925, 22908, 22996, 25105 of 2018 & 726, 1151 of 2019
Decided On : 03-05-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - 309, 310, 311 and 311(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 341, 323, 325, 332, 333, 337, 338, 353, 427, 419, 450, 451, 452, 461, 120(B) - Damage to Public Property Act - Section 3/4 - Committed conduct of indiscipline of higher degree - Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under Union or a State - Damaging properties and also assaulting Senior Officers including their family members - Probationer constables or permanent constables, it speaks that before dismissing any person from services, should be preceded by the departmental inquiry and from record it shows that petitioners have been found to be committed conduct of indiscipline of higher degree and they have been dismissed or terminated from service on account of those charges.
Finding of the court: Criminal case has been lodged against erring police officials. In paragraph no.13 it has been stated that Zonal I.G. Patna perused the entire fact mentioned in inquiry report and agreed with the opinion of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, and subsequently Inspector General of Police, Patna Range, Patna, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, to terminate all answerable/guilty Police personnel, who were involved in such violent behaviour and consequently 164 newly appointed constables who were found unfit for discharging duties of constables were terminated from service vide order contained in memo. Besides this, one Havaldar and three constables were also ordered to be dismissed from the police service under Section 311(2) of Constitution of India - Statements itself show that action has been taken by way of punishment based on foundation act of violence in which 164 probationer constables were found involved have been terminated along with 4 permanent constables - Action of respondents cannot be approved. Accordingly impugned order of termination passed against probationer constables contained in Memo and order of termination passed against permanent constables contained in Memo issued under signature of Senior Superintendent of Police are quashed.
Result: Writ petitions allowed
JUDGMENT :
The petitioners are constables in two categories; first, large number of petitioners are probationers and four of them are permanent constables.
2. In the present case, all the probationers and permanent constables having been terminated from the service on account of an indent took place in new Police Line on 02.11.2018.
3. In all the writ petitions, the facts are identical as also the reasons for termination of service are the same. There is no deviation of the facts, so the facts of C.W.J.C. No.23925 of 2018 is being taken into consideration, if necessary, the facts of other cases will also be taken into consideration.
4. The probationer and permanent constables are challenging the order of termination contained in Memo no. 13624 dated 04.11.2018 (Annexure-11) issued under the signature of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, whereby altogether, 164 probationer constables have been terminated and by the same authority vide order contained in Memo No.13625 dated 04.11.2018, four permanent constables having been dismissed from the service.
5. The facts of these cases runs in the following terms;-
That on 02.11.2018, one lady constable namely, Sabita Kumari Pathak, constable No.1591 died in Udayan Hospital, Patna, as it appears from the record that she had gone for leave on account of her illness, when she reported she was posted at her work place and whereafter her condition deteriorated and ultimately she died while getting treatment in Udayan hospital, Patna. On that account, large number of trainee constables assembled at new police line at Patna around 9:15 A.M. and indulged in the act of hooliganism and violence. They attacked on Dy. S.P. (trainee) in his office with lathi, danda and stones, grievously injured the police personnel posted there including the staffs and employees and went on damaging C.C.T.V. cameras and computers and also tore important files. They were indulged in damaging the Government vehicles parked outside the office and went to the extent of beating the Dy. S.P. and his family. When he tried to hide himself in his residence, he was inflicted head injury and also destroyed his home articles. The Dy. S.P. along with his wife and daughters were admitted in the hospital for severe head injuries. When, City Superintendent of Police and other police officers, on call, reached the place, tried to pacify the mob, they not only defied the request and orders but, also indulged in brick-batting and injured those police personnel and damaged their vehicles. All the incident has been recorded in different C.C.T.V. cameras, that led to institution of four criminal cases viz. (i) Budha Colony P.S. Case No.435 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 341, 323, 325, 332, 333, 337, 338, 353, 427, 419, 450, 451, 452, 461, 120(B) IPC and under Section 3 / 4 of the Damage to Public Property Act; (ii) Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 436 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 341, 342, 323, 324, 325, 307, 306, 332, 333, 337, 338, 353, 427, 419, 450, 451, 452, 461 and 120(B) IPC and under Section 3 / 4 of the Damage to Public Property Act; (iii) Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 437 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 306, 353, 427, 419, 450, 451, 452, 461, 120(B) IPC and (iv) Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 438 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 427 and 504 IPC.
After that, when they were brought under control, the Town Senior Superintendent of Police, West Patna, submitted a report dated 04.11.2018, in which he has given the details of facts and reasons for aggression of the persons damaging the properties and also assaulting the Senior Officers including their family members. In the report, it has been submitted that the administration identified the probationer constables and the permanent constables indulged in the wrong acts. It also appears that a report was also submitted by the Town Superintendent of Police, Patna Range, Patna, vide report dated 03.11.2018 to the Senior Superintendent of Poli
Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India
S.P. Vasudeva V. State of Haryana and Others 1976 (1) SCC 236
Samsheer Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another
Satyavir Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
The State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad
Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram Patel
Anup Jaiswal vs. Government of India & Another
Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs The Union Of India
Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
High Court of M.P. vs. Satya Nrayan Jhavar 2001 (7) SCC 161
Ikramuddin Ahmed Borah vs. Superintendent of Police
Jaswant Singh vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Kedar Nath Bahl vs. State of Punjab and Haryana
Khem Chand vs The Union Of India & Other
Krishnadevaraya Education Trust v. L.A. Balakrishna
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar
Pankaj Kumar vs. The LIC of India and Ors.
Pavendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Science of Anr.
Purshottam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India
Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. Uttar Pradesh State Agro Industries Corporation Limited
Rajesh Kohli vs. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs. Union of India AIR 1963 S.C. 1552
Service matter - Misconduct - Order of Termination from service quashed - Period of probation has been extended on account to their inefficient discharge of duty nor any record has been brought to sh....
If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) notice, it is not incumbent upo....
Termination of a probationer based on misconduct requires a formal enquiry; failure to do so renders the termination stigmatic and punitive.
Termination of a probationer does not require an inquiry unless it is punitive in nature; unsatisfactory performance alone does not constitute grounds for punitive action under Article 311(2).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.