Back
2010 Supreme(Jhk) 866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
D.N. PATEL, J.
Dhiraj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors - Respondent
WP(S) No. 5589 of 2008
Decided On : 19-01-2010
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jitendra Nath and Sandhya Sahay
For the Respondent: Indranil Bhaduri
Termination based on an allegation without following principles of natural justice is considered punitive and requires notice and enquiry.
Headnote:
Termination - Allegation - Jharkhand Police Manual Rule 668, Rule 844 - The court discussed the termination of services of a police officer based on an allegation and the applicability of Jharkhand Police Manual Rule 668 and Rule 844. It highlighted the violation of principles of natural justice and the need for notice and enquiry before punitive termination.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's services were terminated based on an allegation in an F.I.R. without notice or departmental enquiry. The petitioner was acquitted by the trial court, and no criminal appeal was filed by the State. The termination was considered punitive without following principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination was punitive and violated principles of natural justice. It emphasized the need for notice and enquiry before terminating a police officer's services based on an allegation.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, applicability of Jharkhand Police Manual Rule 668 and Rule 844, punitive termination based on an allegation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that termination based on an allegation without notice or enquiry is punitive and violates principles of natural justice. It emphasized the need for following the Jharkhand Police Manual rules and providing an opportunity of being heard before termination.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order terminating the petitioner's services, emphasizing the violation of principles of natural justice and the punitive nature of the termination.
JUDGMENT :
D.N. PATEL, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred mainly against the order passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-6, Jamshedpur, dated 13th July, 2007 (Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition), whereby, the services of the present petitioner has been brought to an end by patting an allegation against the present petitioner that one F.I.R. bearing Lakhisarai Police Station Case No. 95 of 2007 dated 4th March, 2007 under Sections 341, 336, 504, 307 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 24 of the Arms Act is filed against the present petitioner and therefore, his services have been brought to an end. Against this order, the present petition has been preferred.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the termination of the services of the present petitioner is not a termination simplicitor, but, it is a termination punitive and allegation levelled against the present petitioner, in tire impugned order, tantamounts to stigma upon the services of the present petitioner and therefore, there ought to have been a notice/charge-sheet given to the petitioner and there ought to have been departmental enquiry, against the present petitioner, but, in the facts of the present case, never such notice or enquiry has ever been conducted by the respondents. So far as the alleged F.I.R. is concerned, the petitioner has been exonerated from the competent trial court vide order dated 25th September, 2007 in Sessions Case No. 521 of 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Lakhisarai (order at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition). Thus, the very basis, which was alleged against the present petitioner, for termination of the services has been ended into an order of acquittal and no criminal appeal has been preferred by the State, against the order of acquittal. On civil side never any notice nor any hearing has been given to the petitioner and services of the petitioner has been terminated for the reason that the petitioner is involved in the F.I.R. without appreciating Rule 844 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. As per this Rule 844, whenever any criminal case is resulted into conviction or acquittal or discharge, it will be considered by the high ranking police officer. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Rule, upon which reliance has been placed in the impugned order i.e. Rule 668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual is applicable only when the termination is simplicitor. In the facts of the present case, allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner and the petitioner has been terminated from the services and therefore, this termination is a punitive, for which, charge-sheet on civil side and an enquiry is required and therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-3 passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-6, Jamshedpur dated 13th July, 2007, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shileshwar Prasad Verma and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. as reported in 2009(3) JLJR 437.
3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who has mainly submitted that the present petitioner was appointed on 5th December, 2006 and during the period of probation, his services have been brought to an end on 12th July, 2007 vide order dated 13th of July, 2007 at Annexure-3, mainly for the reason that against him an F.I.R has been filed at Lakhisarai Police Station bearing P.S. Case No. 95 of 2007 dated 4th March, 2007 under Sections 341, 336, 504, 307 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 24 of the Arms Act and as per the Jharkhand Police Manual, Rule 668(a) respondents has power, jurisdiction or authority to terminate the services of a probationer, without giving a notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard and therefore, the impugned o
