2025 Supreme(Gau) 2
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) ITANAGAR PERMANENT BENCH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Sushant Saurabh Jha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
WP(C)/197(AP)/2024, WP(C)/198(AP)/2024
Decided on : 21-01-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P.K. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K. Saxena.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Tapin, Sr. G.A.
A second enquiry on the same charges is impermissible under service jurisprudence, and failure to provide an opportunity for representation violates natural justice principles.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Challenge to the order of the Director General of Police regarding departmental enquiry and promotion - The petitioners were suspended pending enquiry, but the enquiry found no charges proved against them. The DGP's order for a de-novo enquiry was held to violate principles of natural justice and service jurisprudence. (Paras 4, 18, 24)
(B) Natural Justice - The DGP's order was passed without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. (Paras 18, 24)
(C) Service Jurisprudence - A second enquiry on the same charges is impermissible under established legal principles. (Paras 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were suspended for alleged misconduct involving money dealings and were later exonerated in a departmental enquiry. The DGP's subsequent order for a de-novo enquiry was challenged. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside for failing to adhere to legal standards and principles of fairness. (Paras 25, 26)
Issues: Whether the DGP could initiate a second enquiry on charges previously found unproven and whether the principles of natural justice were followed. (Paras 18, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a second enquiry on the same charges is not permissible and that the DGP's reliance on preliminary enquiry materials was improper. (Paras 22, 24)
Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned order quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. As the common question of law and facts and as a common order, being No. PHQ/PB/DP-43/2023, dated 18.04.2024, are being challenged in both these writ petitions and as agreed upon, it is proposed to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment and order.
3. In these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order No. PHQ/PB/DP-43/2023, dated 18.04.2024, passed by the Director General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh.
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petitions, are briefly stated as under:
“The petitioners, namely, Sushant Saurabh Jha in WP(C) No. 197/2024 and Minli Geyi in WP(C) No. 198/2024, were serving as Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police respectively, at Naharlagun Police Station. In connection with receipt of money from some persons for procuring high end cars by them and recovery of the same by Delhi Police, on 11.07.2023, they were placed under suspension, vide order dated 14.06.2023, being No. DIGP/ICR/10/2023, in contemplation of initiation of departmental enquiry. Thereafter, on 25.07.2023, a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held for promotion of Sub-Inspectors of Police and since the petitioners were under suspension due to pendency of departmental enquiry, the DPC kept the recommendation for promotion of the petitioners in a sealed cover. Thereafter, departmental enquiry was conducted under Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (“Rules of 1999”, for short) and three articles of charges were framed against both of them, vide order No. SPNLG/ESTT/DE-01/INSP/MG/SSJ/2023/316. Thereafter, on 22.11.2023, suspension order of the petitioners were revoked and they were attached to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Itanagar Capital Range until further orders. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police, Naharlagun on 19.01.2024 and he had arrived at a finding that all the three charges were not proved against the petitioners. Being the disciplinary authority, the Superintendent of Police, Naharlagun accepted the enquiry report on 23.01.2024 and discharged the petitioners in exercise of power under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1999, treating the period of suspension w.e.f. 14.07.2023 to 22.11.2023, as spent on duty. Thereafter, the Inspector General of Police (Admin), Arunachal Pradesh issued an order directing constitution of review DPC on 29.02.2024 for promotion of the petitioners from the rank of Sub-Inspector to Inspector in Civil Police, fixing the date on 04.03.2024 for review DPC. Thereafter, the meeting of review DPC was held under the chairmanship of Inspector General of Police (A), Police Headquarter, Arunachal Pradesh on 04.03.2024 and the review DPC opened the sealed cover and recommended promotion of the petitioners as Inspector of Police and forwarded the same to the Director General of Police. Thereafter, the Director General of Police in a detailed office note, disapproved the enquiry report and acceptance thereof by the disciplinary authority which resulted in discharge of the petitioners and also recommendation of the review DPC to promote the petitioners by invoking his power under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1999 and directed to hold de-novo enquiry against the petitioners from the stage of evidence by a SP rank officer, vide order dated 05.04.2024 i.e. the order impugned in these petitions. Thereafter, the Director General of Police had issued one detailed order on 18.04.2024, in exercise of power under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1999 and also directed that till finalization of the departmental enquiry, the promotion of the petitioners shall be kept in a sealed cover. Be
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
