Mithileshwar Singh vs State of Bihar - 2021 Supreme(Pat) 1111

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Pat) 1111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
CWJC No. 7864 of 2020
(4.2.2021)
Mithileshwar Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates:
For the Petitioners: M/s Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kumar Giri.
For the Respondent: Mr. Lalit Kishore.

Headnote:
Service Law – Termination – From post of A.S.I. of Police – Rule 853(A) of Bihar Police Manual, 1978 – If on same set of facts, an employee has been given relief by a co-ordinate Bench, all other identically situated persons also are required to be treated alike by extending that benefit to them – Not doing so would result in discrimination and would offend Article 14 of Constitution of India – If judgment of coordinate Bench is reversed, it would have same impact on case of petitioner as well – Petitioner directed to be reinstated forthwith – Consequences of quashing of impugned order shall follow and accordingly petitioner shall be entitled to full salary and other emoluments for period during which he remained out of service. (Paras 18, 22 and 25)
Judicial Discipline – Precedent – Judicial discipline and decorum requires that only when an earlier judgment is per incuriam in as much as earlier judgment omits to consider a binding precedent of the same Court or of Superior Court rendered on same issue or where a Court omits to consider any statue while deciding the issue, a different conclusion can be arrived at – There should normally be no departure from said decision otherwise and such judgment ought to be followed. (Para 21)

Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar Patna whereby he has been terminated from service from the post of A.S.I. of Police as well as the consequent D.O. letters by the concerned Superintendent of Police and has prayed for his reinstatement on the post of A.S.I. with effect from 20.06.2020 with all consequential benefits including back wages which has accrued during the period of termination till his reinstatement.

3. Consumption of illicit liquor had led to the death of 16 persons on 16.08.2016 in village Khajurbani, falling in the territorial jurisdiction of Gopalganj district. When this news got disseminated, a raid was conducted in the village, in which half-brewed liquor in huge quantity and the wherewithals for brewing were recovered. Six persons were arrested along with the illicit liquor. An FIR was lodged vide Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 347 of 2016 on 18.08.2016.

4. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted as A.S.I. in Gopalganj Town Police Station. He was suspended immediately. Twenty nine (29) other police personnel were also suspended along with the petitioner. The ground for suspension was that the police personnel were in know of the illegal brewing and selling of liquor but no care was taken by them regarding such unauthorized production/manufacture and sale of liquor.

5. The suspension of the petitioner was subsequently revoked and a decision was taken to initiate departmental proceeding against him and others.

6. The charges were framed against the petitioner. In the inquiry, the petitioner was found negligent and that he had derelicted his duty.

7. The disciplinary authority consequently imposed punishment of two black marks with stoppage of increment of salary for one year with cumulative effect.

8. No appeal was preferred against the said order of punishment.

9. However, the Deputy Inspector General of Police differed with the aforesaid findings and the quantum of punishment and referred the matter to the police headquarters for further action under Rule 853 (A) of the Bihar Police Manual.

10. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by invoking the powers under Rule 853(A) of the Bihar Police Manual.

11. Almost all the police personnel who were posted in the concerned police station in different capacities were subjected to the same punishment.

12. In case of one of the dismissed employee viz. Ananjay Singh @ Ananjay Kumar Singh, who was posted as one of the armed guards in the police station, a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7906 of 2020* found that the dismissal order necessitated interference. The order of dismissal was set aside but it was observed that since the petitioner therein had chosen not to challenge the order of punishment of two black marks awarded to him initially, he would not be allowed to question the correctness of that order.

13. The Bench repelled the preliminary objection of the State regarding maintainability of the writ petition in view of the petitioner therein having an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Rule 24 of Bihar Government Servants (Classification and Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

14. The Court was of the view that the impugned order was passed in most casual and cavalier manner and, therefore, it was not appropriate to relegate the petitioner therein to the authority which could have heard the appeal. The Court also found the charge against the petitioner therein to be absolutely vague. The correctness of the order of dismissal was seriously doubted and consequently the order of dismissal was set aside. The petitioner therein was directed to be reinstated forthwith. He was declared to be entitled to full salary and other emoluments for the period during which he had remained out

Click Here to Read the rest of this document