Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 797
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Binod Kumar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondent
W. P. (S) No. 2644 of 2004
Decided On : 06.07.2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. Rakhi Rani, J.C. to Sr. S. C. II
The charges in disciplinary proceedings should be specific and definite, and the Appellate Authority must provide a reasoned order.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Disciplinary Proceedings - District Order No. 2240 of 2001, Memo No. 2167 dated 27.09.2001, Memo No. 1972 dated 09.09.2003 - Charges levelled against the petitioner, inquiry report, non-supply of inquiry report, vague charges, Appellate Order, discrimination - Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y. P. Education Society (2013) 6 SCC 515, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. A. Masilamani (2013) 6 SCC 530, Sarva U. P. Gramin Bank Vs. Manoj Kumar (2010) 3 SCC 556 - The court discussed the vagueness of charges, non-supply of inquiry report, and the relevance of specific and definite charges in disciplinary proceedings. The court also emphasized the requirement of a reasoned order by the Appellate Authority and the impact of vague charges on the validity of departmental proceedings. These legal provisions influenced the court's decision to quash the dismissal order and reinstate the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was dismissed from service based on vague charges and non-supply of the inquiry report. The petitioner challenged the dismissal and the appeal decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were vague and the non-supply of the inquiry report did not cause prejudice. The court also emphasized the requirement of a reasoned order by the Appellate Authority.
Issues: Vagueness of charges, non-supply of inquiry report, discrimination, and the validity of the dismissal order.
Ratio Decidendi: The charges should be specific, definite, and accompanied by a statement of allegations. The Appellate Authority must provide a reasoned order. Non-supply of the inquiry report does not automatically vitiate the proceedings if it does not cause prejudice.
Final Decision: The dismissal order and the appeal decision were quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the District Order No. 2240 of 2001 issued under Memo No. 2167 dated 27.09.2001 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner had been dismissed from service. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 1972 dated 09.09.2003 by which the respondent no. 2 had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his order of dismissal.
2. On or about 31.10.1997, the petitioner was appointed on the post of constable in the District Police Force, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. Sometimes, in August 2000, the petitioner was sent for training for a period of 9 months at Chaibasa. On the complaint made by the Subedar Major (Samadeshak) to the Police Training Centre, Chaibasa against the petitioner and one Bhola Rai, the respondent no. 3 passed an order directing the suspension of the petitioner and Bhola Rai and for issuance of charge-sheet against them. In terms of District Order No. 1256 of 2001 dated 22.05.2001, the petitioner was put under suspension and thereafter by virtue of office order as contained in Memo No. 1293 dated 28.05.2001, a charge-sheet was submitted upon the petitioner by which the charges which were levelled against him were as follows:
I. On 18.05.2001 at 4 P.M. after training was over, the petitioner is alleged to have shown indisciplined behaviour by going out on bare foot and in civil dress.
II. He used to press 'Samadeshak' (Subedar) to grant leave to the Police personnel.
III. Due to his alleged disturbance, the officials imparting training as well as the Police persons were affected due to which he was cautioned.
3. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 05.06.2001 denying the charges levelled against him. In the inquiry which was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chakradharpur, an adverse finding was recorded and the Inquiry Officer submitted the report before the respondent no. 3. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show-cause as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from the service on the basis of charge nos. 2 & 3 to which the petitioner gave a reply and thereafter in terms of the order as contained in Memo No. 2167 dated 27.09.2001 issued by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner was dismissed from service. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner, but in terms of the order contained in Memo No. 1972 dated 09.09.2003, respondent no. 2 dismissed the appeal.
4. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Rakhi Rani, learned J.C. to Sr. S. C. II.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges which had been levelled against the petitioner were itself vague in nature and there is no mention about any specific incident so as to substantiate the charges. It has further been submitted that the inquiry report was never served upon the petitioner and since it was the mandatory requirement under the law, non-submission of inquiry report to the petitioner had caused serious prejudice in controverting the findings of the inquiry report and in such circumstances, the disciplinary authority could not have passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that even the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Appellate Order as contained in Memo No. 1972 dated 09.09.2003 is cryptic and non-speaking order without taking into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner. Continuing with his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similarly situated person who was charge-sheeted along with the petitioner namely, Bhola Rai has been exonerated from the same charges whereas a major punishment of dismissal had been passed against the petitioner which is a clear case of discrimination. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned
