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

2021 Supreme(Pat) 571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Ananjay Singh @ Ananjay Kumar Singh S/o-Subhas Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7906 of 2020
Decided On : 06-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Y.V. Giri (Sr. Advocate) with: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Giri
For the Respondent: Mr.P.K. Verma (AAG 3) with : Mr.Saroj Kumar Sharma : Mr.Manish Kumar (GP 4) with Mr. Ravi Verma

Headnote:

Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Rules 23, 24 and 28 – Bihar Police Manual, 1978 – Rule 853 A (a) – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Appeal can be preferred only in respect of orders which are appealable under Rule 23 of Bihar CCARules, namely, an order of suspension or order of punishment – No appellate authority has been specified by a general or special order of government for appeal by Group C to D employees against an order passed by Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police exercising his revisional jurisdiction – Under Rules appeal against an order of punishment will lie to State Government, if order of punishment has not been passed by an authority subordinate to Appointing Authority in case of members of Civil Service Group A or Group B or holder of Civil post, Group A or Group B – In case, such order has been passed by an authority subordinate to Appointing Authority, appeal shall lie to Appointing Authority – In case of members of Civil Service, Group C or Group D, appeal shall lie to authority to which, authority making order appealed against is immediately subordinate – No appeal by a government servant who is or was a member of Civil Service, Group C or Group D shall lie to government against any order made under Rule 23 of Bihar CCA Rules – Existence of an alternative remedy is no bar for High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. (Paras 18, 20, 21 and 22)

Service Law – Punishment – Finding recorded by Enquiring Authority, holding petitioner guilty of charge, suffers from perversity, same having been recorded without any evidence to establish any specific misconduct – Mere non-participation of petitioner in departmental enquiry would not have absolved duty of department from its duty to prove allegation of misconduct against petitioner in departmental proceeding – Authorities were not sure among themselves whether disciplinary proceeding against a member of police force is to be governed by Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 or by provisions under Bihar Police Manual – Charges were framed on presumption of knowledge of police personnel regarding illegal activities going on in village concerned – Impugned order set aside – Petitioner directed to be reinstated forthwith – Petitioner shall be entitled to full salary and other emoluments for period during which he remained out of service because of passing of an illegal order. (Paras 22, 23, 27, 31 and 32)

JUDGMENT :

1. Sixteen persons were reported dead because of consumption of illicit liquor on 16.08.2016 in village Khajuria, falling under Gopalganj (Town) Police Station in the District of Gopalganj. The petitioner, on the said date, was posted as an Armed Guard in the said Police Station. After receiving the said information, a raid was conducted, leading to recovery of huge quantity of semi fermented country made liquor and other intermediate/final products intended to be used in the preparation of country-made liquor. An F.I.R. was registered as Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 347 of 2016.

2. Soon thereafter, the petitioner along with 29 police personnel posted in the Police Station was placed under suspension as a fallout of the occurrence. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order no. 738/16 dated 18.08.2016. The order of suspension was subsequently revoked by an order dated 05.01.2017 and a decision was taken to initiate departmental proceeding against him. Charges were framed against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, which were issued vide memo no. 217 dated 07.02.2017 (Annexure 1). The charge sheet has been brought on record by way of Annexure 1 to the writ application, in which, apart from recital of the occurrence, which had taken place on 16.08.2016, it was mentioned that in relation to New Excise Policy of the State Government, the concerned police personnel were instructed to strictly follow the orders/instructions issued by the State Government, Police Headquarters and other Senior Officers and crime meetings were also held by the Disciplinary Authority (Superintendent of Police) from time to time for recovery of illicit liquor. The activities of preparation and sale of illicit liquor in a village hardly at a distance of 2 kms from the Police Station were within the knowledge of the police officers and other personnel of the Police Station, which was not taken seriously. This was considered to be indicative of negligence, dereliction of duty and suspicious conduct of the police officers/personnel. For quick reference, the misconduct alleged against the petitioner in the charge sheet is being reproduced hereinbelow verbatim:-

    ^^fcgkj ljdkj dh u;h mRikn fufr ds lanHkZ es fcgkj ljdkj iqfyl eq[;ky; ,oa vU; ojh; inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls izkIr vkns'k@funsZ'k lHkh Fkkuk@iqfyl fujh{kd ,oa vuqeM+y iqfyl inkf/kdkjh dks miyC/k djkrs gq, bls iwjh n`ढ+rk ls vuqikyu djus gsrq funsf'kr fd;k tk jgk gSA v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk vijk/k xks"Bh ,oa le;≤ ij 'kjkc ds cjkenxh gsrq ledkyhu vfHk;kstu dk vk;kstu fd;k tkrk jgk gSA
    uxj Fkkuk xksikyxat ds ek= 2 fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij [ktqfj;k xk¡o esa bl nk: 'kjkc dk fuekZ.k ,oa fcØh gksuk Fkkuk ds lHkh iqfyl inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa dfeZ;ksa ds tkudkjh es Fkh vkSj bls xaHkhjrk ls ugh fy;k x;k tcfd mDr xk¡o esa o`gn :i ls egqvk nslh 'kjkc dk fuekZ.k dk feuh m|ksx pyk;k tk jgk FkkA ;g Li"V gh ykijokgh ,o drZO;ghurk ,oa lafnX/k vkpj.k dk n;ksrd gSaA^^

3. It is evident from the charge memo that the Disciplinary Authority intended to rely on following documentary evidences to establish the charge framed against the petitioner:-

i) Gopalganj Jiladesh Number- 738/2016 ii) Gopalganj Jiladesh Number- 19/2017 iii) Copy of the F.I.R.

4. Further, the department intended to examine the following witnesses to establish the aforesaid charge:-

I) Confidential Reader, Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj II) Reserved Sub-Inspector, Police Line Gopalganj III) Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Gopalganj.

5. Be it noted that the document at item no. 1 hereinabove was the order whereby the petitioner was put under suspension and the document at item no. 2 of the charge sheet was the order whereby the said order of suspension was revoked. The third document was apparently the First Information Report registered in respect of the occurrence in question. In the departmental enquiry, the Confidential Reader proved the documents at item no. 1 and 2, which were issued by the Superintendent of Police, G

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      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