IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Padma Kumari - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 3217 of 2018
Decided On : 14-06-2023
Service Law – Post of Constable – Offence of Cheating – Suspended – Filed for quashing order – Whether any interference with the quantum of punishment imposed upon petitioner is required to be made by this Court under extraordinary writ jurisdiction – Held, gravity of offence must necessarily be measured with nature of offence - Respondent was a member of a disciplined force holding the rank of Head Constable – Duty assigned to him was a “bandobast” duty during the visit of then President Bill Clinton, who ran a security risk of the highest grade – His misconduct could have led to serious security lapse resulting in fatal consequences – Petitioner had withdrawn money from account of complainant by putting forged signature on cheque stolen by her which is a serious charge particularly considering that she was a member of a disciplined force - Previously also, petitioner had committed theft of ATM card of her colleague for which she was imposed punishment of seizure of one annual increment – Court find no reason to interfere with order passed against petitioner by disciplinary authority as well as orders of appellate and revisional authorities – Writ petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.12.2015 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-10, Hotwar, Ranchi in Departmental Proceeding No. 24/2015, a copy of which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 476 dated 12.12.2015, whereby she was dismissed from service. Further prayer has been made for quashing order dated 06.04.2016 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority i.e the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi (the respondent no.3) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing letter dated 13.04.2018 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration), Office of the Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi (the respondent no.4) whereby she was informed regarding rejection of her application dated 12.01.2018 filed for reinstatement in service in the light of acquittal order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 4709 of 2015 (arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 385 of 2015). The petitioner has also prayed for her re-instatement on the post of Constable with all consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Lady Constable on 10.05.2008 in the Jharkhand Armed Police, 10th Battalion, Jharkhand and she was posted in the Camp at Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi. An FIR being Sadar P.S Case No. 385 of 2015 was lodged against her u/s 419, 420 and 379 of IPC alleging that she had withdrawn an amount of Rs.49,000/- from the Bank Account of one of her colleagues namely Vibha Kumari of the same Unit by stealing her cheques from her purse. Accordingly, vide order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-10, Hotwar, Ranchi, petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 04.08.2015 (afternoon) and departmental proceeding no. 24/2015 was initiated against her, a copy of which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 1891 dated 05.08.2015. Thereafter, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide memo no. 2046 dated 21.08.2015. During the said departmental proceeding, eight witnesses were examined and finally the inquiry officer submitted the report on 03.11.2015 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against her. Subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-10, Hotwar, Ranchi vide order as contained in memo no. 476 dated 12.12.2015. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no.3 which was dismissed vide order as contained in memo no. 901 dated 06.04.2016. The petitioner then filed application before the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 12.01.2018 praying for her reinstatement in service pursuant to order of her acquittal passed on 18.12.2017 in G.R. Case No. 4709 of 2015, however the same was rejected vide letter as contained in memo no. 291 dated 13.04.2018 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration), Office of the Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, without considering the fact that on the basis of compromise taken place between the complainant-Vibha Devi and her, she was acquitted in the said criminal case. It is also submitted that even if the allegation against the petitioner is taken to be true, the order of punishment is grossly disproportionate and as such the same is required to be set aside.
3. Per contra, Mr. Vinit Prakash, learned A.C. to S.C.-IV appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner had admitted commission of the offence in her written replies dated 31.08.2015 & 09.09.2015 filed before the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-10, Hotwar, Ranchi and subsequently compromised with the complainant-Vibha Kumari by returning her Rs.49,000/- vide
Union of India & Others Vs. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari reported in (2006) 10 SCC 388
Govt. of A.P. & Others Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan reported in (2006) 2 SCC 373
G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446
Deputy Inspector General of Police & Another Vs. S. Samuthiram reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598
RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order of acquittal in a criminal case, when read with the orders passed by the disciplinary authorities, can result in a clean slate for th....
Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically lead to reinstatement in disciplinary proceedings unless charges and evidence are identical.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the foundation of departmental proceedings and criminal trial is the same, the court must examine the judgment of acquittal and consider re....
The dismissal of a police officer based on departmental proceedings was unjustified as the charges were not proven, and acquittal in criminal proceedings must be considered.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.