Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
CWJC No.12321 of 2021
(20.3.2025)
Manoj Kumar Ram ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law – Departmental Proceeding – Judicial Review – Petitioner trapped while taking bribe – Departmental proceeding initiated leading in dismissal of petitioner – A charge of corruption is rather a serious charge and if found in a disciplinary proceeding, the opinion expressed by the disciplinary authority/presenting officer cannot be interfered with on misplaced sympathy – Gravity of Charge is a relevant factor in trap cases – Technical flow flop would not be sufficient to set aside the order passed on such misconduct – The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision making process and not the decision – Caution has been made that the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator – In the instant case, the Presenting Officer appointed belatedly – There is nothing as to what role the Conducting Officer had played – The report of the Conducting Officer narrated the statement of the witnesses produced on behalf of the Department as well as defence written statement of the petitioner, but there is no deliberation and discussion as to why the defence of the petitioner is not worth accepting – Mere reiteration of the statement of the witnesses and the written defence statement could not be suffice to absolve the Inquiry Officer from discharging his significant duty, who has been bound to act as an independent quasi judicial authority – It is trile that justice is not to be done but in manifestly seen to be done – At an enquiry which may lead to extreme punishment of dismissal, extreme caution is required; and if in case the delinquent could not get the benefit of cross examination of witnesses on account of his absence, if found to be in absence on justifiable grounds, in such circumstances, the Enquiry Officer should be indulgent to provide opportunity for cross examination on the next date asked for by the delinquent – It is also the settled principle that in a disciplinary proceeding the charges are proved on the preponderance of probabilities whereas in a criminal case the charges an to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts but in absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification, mere recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant/accused does not establish the commission of offence, hence in the case, herein, it was incumbent upon the Department to prove even on the yardstick of preponderances of probabilities that the petitioner voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe – Further, the SHO against whom the complaint demand of bribe of Rs. 30,000/- was made, had been left only with a black mark, which is equivalent to warning – Accordingly, impugned order as well as the appellate order are set aside – Writ petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. (Paras 15, 16, 18 to 26)
Harish Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, learned Advocate for the State at length.
2. The petitioner has invoked the prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashing of Memo No. 3340 dated 17.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra (respondent no. 6), whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The consequential orders, as contained in Memo No. 4989 dated 24.11.2018 as well as Memo No. 2488 dated 29.11.2018, are also put to challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner is further aggrieved with the order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the appeal preferred against the order of dismissal also came to be rejected vide order dated 16.02.2021 along with the consequential orders issued under Memo No. 1498 dated 13.03.2021 and Memo No. 595 dated 23.03.2021.
3. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present lis as culled out from the materials available on record, in brief, are as follows: –
(i) The petitioner was duly appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police on 18.02.2009. While the petitioner was posted in Jalalpur Police Station within the district of Saran, he was handed over an investigation in connection with Jalalpur P.S. Case No. 112 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The afore noted case was instituted against the Headmaster of the Government School along with other persons. In the meanwhile, the husband of the accused (Rajani Dubey) made a written complaint on 18.11.2014 before the Superintendent of Police,Vigilance Bureau, Patna to the effect regarding demand of Rs.30,000/- by the SHO of Jalalpur P.S. in lieu of sending the case diary to the court, where bail application of his wife was pending.
(ii) On the basis of the said complaint, verification was made on 19.11.2014 and subsequent thereto, a trap team was constituted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna. A raid was conducted on 21.11.2014 and the petitioner was apprehended while accepting bribe of Rs.20,000/- leading to institution of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 90 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7/13 (2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequent to the institution of the FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension and Prapatra-Ka was framed under Memo No. 27 dated 03.01.2015.
(iii) The petitioner on being released from the judicial custody on 16.01.2015 filed a show cause on 09.03.2015 requesting therein to allow him to cross examine all the witnesses, who shall depose in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner also filed his show cause/defence statement before the Conducting Officer on 24.09.2018; a demand was made for necessary document with regard to the charges alleged against him. On 19.12.2017 under Memo No. 5793 issued by the Superintendent of Police, the Presenting Officer was appointed. On enquiry, all the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved and accordingly, after completion of the enquiry, the Conducting Officer has submitted its enquiry report to the Superintendent of Police vide Memo No. 578 dated 27.09.2018. Upon submission of the enquiry report, a show cause notice was duly served upon the petitioner against his proposed dismissal from service. In response thereto, the petitioner filed his exhaustive reply in his defence reiterating the grounds which have been taken during enquiry. Finally, the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed under Memo No. 3340 dated 17.11.2018, which order has been communicated to the petitioner by passing a consequential order under Memo No. 4989 dated 24.11.2018/Memo No. 2488 dated 29.11.2018 respectively.
(iv) It would also be relevant to point out that during the departmental proceeding, the petitioner had also preferred CWJC No. 15117 of 2
Procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries is paramount; mere allegations without supporting evidence or adherence to specified rules cannot justify punitive actions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
