Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY & MURARI PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Barun Chatterjee
Versus
State of West Bengal & Others
W.P.S.T. No. 125 of 2013 (Appellate Side)
Decided On : 26-08-2013
UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE - POLICE REGULATION BENGAL (PRB) - REGULATION 884 - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - ENHANCEMENT OF PUNISHMENT - JURISDICTION OF REVISIONAL AUTHORITY - UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE WITHOUT WILFUL INTENT NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCONDUCT - CONSIDERATION OF PAST CONDUCT NOT AMOUNTING TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY - SCOPE AND POWER OF REVISIONAL AUTHORITY LIMITED - REVISIONAL AUTHORITY CANNOT SUBSTITUTE OWN VIEWS FOR THOSE OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - REVISIONAL AUTHORITY EXCEEDED JURISDICTION IN ENHANCING PUNISHMENT AND DISMISSING PETITIONER FROM SERVICE - ORDER OF DISMISSAL QUASHED AND DECISION OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AFFIRMED - PETITIONER TO BE REINSTATED WITH 50% BACKWAGES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Constable in the West Bengal Police, was charged with unauthorized absence from duty for 120 days. An enquiry officer found him guilty, and the disciplinary authority, the Superintendent of Police, imposed a major punishment by withholding 14 annual increments. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, exercising his revisional power under Regulation 884 of the PRB, enhanced the punishment to dismissal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the revisional authority exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing the punishment and dismissing the petitioner from service. The Court found that the disciplinary authority had properly conducted the disciplinary proceedings and imposed a major punishment in accordance with law. The Court also held that the revisional authority could not substitute his own views for those of the disciplinary authority, especially when there was no failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to exercise his authority and power.
Issues: 1. Whether the revisional authority had properly exercised his revisional power by enhancing the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 2. Whether the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police exceeded his jurisdiction while exercising his power in terms of Regulation 884 of the Police Regulation Bengal. 3. Whether the consideration of past conduct of the petitioner amounted to double punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of revisional authority is limited and should be sparingly exercised when the revisional authority is satisfied that the power has been exercised perversely by the subordinate authority. 2. The revisional authority cannot substitute his own views in place of the disciplinary authority even though there was no failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to exercise his authority and power. 3. Consideration of past conduct of the charged employee cannot and does not amount to double jeopardy.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned order passed by the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police and affirmed the decision of the disciplinary authority. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and pay him 50% of the backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of joining duties.
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in the case being O.A. No. 1391 of 2003 whereby the said learned Tribunal disposed of the application filed by the petitioner herein without granting any relief to the said petitioner. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Constable on 3rd July, 1977. Superintendent of Police, Burdwan initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a charge sheet on 24th September, 2002 alleging the misconduct of unauthorised absence from duty.
From the records, we find that the petitioner was absenting from duty with effect from 9th May, 2002 without obtaining any leave from the appropriate authority. The petitioner however, by the written communication dated 17th July, 2002 informed the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan about his willingness to join the duty and accordingly, requested the said Superintendent of Police to issue appropriate order for allowing him to join the duty by sanctioning leave for the said period the petitioner remained absent from duty.
It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the said petitioner did not join the duty in spite of expressing the willingness and ultimately, on 31st July, 2002 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner but no reply was submitted by the said petitioner in answer to the said show-cause notice. Thereafter the impugned charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police on 24th September, 2002 which is set out hereunder:-
“BWN Dist. Proceeding No. 26/02 dt. 24.9.02
Charge
You, Const./1289 Barun Chatterjee of Burdwan District Police Force earlier attached to Katwa P.S. are hereby charged with gross misconduct and dereliction of duty unbecoming of a member of police force in that:-
1. That you have been absenting yourself from your place of posting at Katwa P.S. from 9-5-02 A.M.
2. That you have been absenting yourself without any leave or intimation to your appropriate authority since 9-5-02 nor you have taken any permission from the competent authority.
3. That you submitted petitions before R.O. on 7-7-02, 29-7-02 and 7-9-02 expressing your willingess to join, accordingly you were directed by the R.O. in all the petitions to join at Katwa P.S. but you did not join disobeying the direction of the R.O.
4. That notices vide Memo. No. 1407/R.O. Dt. 12-5-02 and Memo. No. 2284/R.O. dated 30-7-02 and show cause notice vide Memo. No. 2326/R.O. dt. 31/7/02 were served upon you, but you have not given any reply to the above notices.
You are therefore directed to state in writing within 7 (seven) days on receipt of the charge and statement of allegation, whether you plead guilty to the Charge in full or part thereof or want an open enquiry.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BURDWAN”
After issuance of the said charge sheet, enquiry officer was appointed who conducted an enquiry and found that the Charge of unauthorised absence from duty for the period of 120 days has been established. Upon considering the charge levelled against the petitioner and also the findings of the enquiry officer, Superintendent of Police, Burdwan passed the final order of punishment on 28th March, 2003 withholding 14 Annual increments with future effect. The said Superintendent of Police confirmed the period of suspension and further directed that the period of unauthorised absence from duty should be treated as extraordinary leave. The final order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan dated 28th March, 2003 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Burdwan Dist. D.O. No. 1085 dt. 28.3.03
FINAL ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH BURDWAN DISTRICT PROCEEDING NO. 26/02 DATED 24/9/2002 DRAWN UP AGAINST CONST/1289 BARUN CHATTERJEE OF BURDWAN DISTRICT POLICE FORCE.
Constable/1289 Barun Chatterjee of Burdwan District Police Force is hereby charged with gross misconduct and dereliction of duty unbecom
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
