Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Kamlesh Dubey S/o Shri Babu Lal Dubey – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) Nos. 329, 330 of 2017
Decided On : 03-11-2022
Departmental Proceeding - Misconduct - 2020 SCC Online SC 954, (2021) 2 SCC 612 - The court discussed the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, emphasizing that the High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence. It highlighted the principles of natural justice, the evaluation of the decision-making process, and the scope of judicial review in disciplinary enquiries. The court also emphasized that the quantum of punishment should be proportionate to the misconduct, especially for members of the police force.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were dismissed from service after being found guilty of misconduct, including misbehaving and assaulting the public while intoxicated. They challenged the dismissal orders, arguing that the evidence was not properly considered and that there was no medical evidence to prove their intoxication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental proceeding was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It held that the charges of misconduct against the petitioners were proved based on the evidence presented. The court also determined that the punishment imposed was not excessive given the nature of the misconduct.
Issues: The issues involved the proper consideration of evidence in the departmental proceeding, the requirement for medical evidence of intoxication, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, the importance of following the principles of natural justice, and the requirement for evidence to support the findings of misconduct. It also highlighted the need for proportionate punishment in disciplinary cases, especially for members of the police force.
Final Decision: The writ petitions challenging the dismissal orders were dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 329 of 2017 has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 1031/Go. dated 01.06.2016, whereby he has been dismissed from service after conclusion of a departmental enquiry. He has also challenged the order contained in Memo No. 1570/Go. dated 07.10.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Paragana Range, Dumka, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
Petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 330 of 2017 has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 1037/Go. dated 01.06.2016 by which he has been dismissed after conclusion of departmental enquiry. He has also challenged the order contained in Memo No. 1572/Go. dated 07.10.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Paragana Range, Dumka, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
3. Two departmental proceedings were initiated under two different memos against the petitioners for misconduct, committed jointly by them. Charge against both the petitioners are that on 28.11.2005, both the petitioners being police personnel, in an intoxicated state, were misbehaving and assaulting general public near Cinemal Hall at Maheshpur. Due to the acts of these petitioners, 50-60 persons assembled there and there was serious threat to law and order in the area. After receiving such information, higher police officers reached the place when petitioner Kamlesh Dubey [W.P. (S) No. 329 of 2017] fled from the place of occurrence, but petitioner Gunadhar Singh [W.P. (S) No. 330 of 2017] was escorted to the police station. Petitioner Kamlesh Dubey returned to the police station. They were sent to police barrack. Polo Ghosh and Lalu Yadav and other 50-60 persons arrived at the police station and they demanded to take action against these two petitioners. These two petitioners with arms came out and started misbehaving with the police personnel. They misbehaved with higher police officers and also fired, which added fuel to the fire. They entered into scuffle with other police officers. On the aforesaid allegations, which is a misconduct, both the petitioners were proceeded against in separate departmental proceedings. Chargesheets were submitted to which the petitioners replied. An enquiry officer took evidence of the witnesses and thereafter submitted enquiry report. It was the case of the petitioners that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to participate in the departmental proceeding. On the grievance raised by the petitioner, opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and witnesses were reexamined and the petitioners were given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Thereafter a fresh enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, passed an order of punishment dismissing both the petitioners from service. Against the said order, appeals were also preferred by the petitioners, which were also dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid orders on the ground that no second show cause was served along with enquiry report, both the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3515 of 2008 and W.P. (S) No. 3517 of 2008. Both these writ petitions were allowed and the matter was remitted to proceed afresh from the stage of supply of second show cause notice. Thereafter second show cause notice was served along with enquiry report. Petitioners, thereafter, were punished and they were dismissed from service on the proved charge. The order of dismissal, so far as petitioner Kamlesh Dubey in W.P. (S) No. 329 of 2017 is concerned, is dated 01.06.2016 as contained in Memo No. 1031/Go. and so far as petitioner Gunadhar Singh in W.P. (S) No. 330 of 2017 is concerned, punishment order is dated 01.06.2016 as contained in Memo No. 1037/Go. Both these petitione
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, the principles of natural justice, and the requirement for proportionate punishment in disciplinary cases, espec....
The limited scope of interference by the High Court in departmental proceedings and the evaluation of the decision-making process in disciplinary proceedings.
The punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding should not shock the conscience of the court and should be proportionate to the proven charge.
The distinction between criminal acquittal and departmental proceedings is crucial; acquittal does not imply innocence in disciplinary contexts, and the standard of proof in disciplinary matters is l....
In departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the court will not interfere with the disciplinary authority's findings unless there is a clear ....
The main legal point established is that subsequent acquittal in a criminal case does not invalidate a completed departmental proceeding, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in departmenta....
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
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
