The main legal point established is the requirement for administrative authorities to act within the specified statutory provisions and the obligation to act fairly, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures and exercising jurisdiction within the legal framework.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

I.A. No. 10923 of 2023

The appellant has filed this interlocutory application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, the delay of 8 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

3. I.A. No. 10923 of 2023 is, accordingly, allowed.

LPA No. 566 of 2023

4. Sachidanand Singh who is the writ petitioner has challenged the writ Court’s order dated 19th July 2023 passed in WP(S) No. 6024 of 2015, he was dismissed from service.

5. Briefly stated, the appellant who was appointed as a constable on 8th September 1981 faced a departmental inquiry vide departmental proceeding No. 26 of 2003. The imputation of misconduct levelled against the appellant was that on 8th November 2003 he received a rifle and 50 rounds of bullets and after loading 5 bullets in the rifle went to the spot where other trainees were cleaning their rifles. The appellant requested Shyam Bahadur Thapa, who was also a trainee police, to hold the rifle. During cleaning the rifle, Shyam Bahadur Thapa put the full-through in the barrel and starting pulling away the full-through but, in the meantime, a bullet was fired from the rifle which hit him on his waist and caused bleeding injury. Shyam Bahadur Thapa was brought to a hospital at Hazaribagh for his treatment and was referred to RIMS at Ranchi for treatment but on the way to Ranchi he succumbed to the injury and passed away. A criminal case was registered vide Barhi (Padma) PS Case No. 216 of 2003 on 9th November 2003 against the appellant and a chargesheet was laid in the Court under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Simultaneously, the appellant was issued a charge memo on the aforesaid allegation and the inquiring officer submitted a report on 6th September 2004 rendering an opinion that on account of negligence of the appellant a shot was fired from the rifle which caused death of Shyam Bahadur Thapa. The Superintendent of Police at the Jharkhand Armed Police (Training Centre) Padma accepted the opinion rendered by the inquiring officer and awarded punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment equivalent to two black marks which shall not have any effect on the future increment. However, as the order dated 17th November 2008 reveals, the Director General of Police reviewed the punishment order and formed a tentative opinion that the punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment awarded to the appellant was grossly insufficient and, accordingly, issued a notice to him on 29th May 2008 affording 15 days’ time to him to respond to the said notice. It appears that on receiving the said notice, the appellant sought one month’s time through his letter dated 29th June 2008 for putting forth his defence but he did not submit his reply even after four months and therefore the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded by the Director General of Police which was issued by the Inspector-General of Police (Training) vide order dated 17th November 2008. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the writ Court in WP(S) No. 2990 of 2009 and the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 1st December 2014 with a direction to the Director General of Police to dispose of his representation dated 4th December 2008. The said representation of the appellant was dismissed on 23rd November 2009 which was communicated to him through letter dated 17th July 2015. In the meantime, GR Case No. 2658 of 2003 corresponding to TR No. 522 of 2007, arising out of Barhi (Padma) PS Case No. 216 of 2003, ended in acquittal of the appellant by the judgment rendered on 25th May 2007.

6. In the said judgment, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, rendered the following opinion :

“21. Let us see whether any rashness or negligence which is the essential requirement for the conviction u/s 304-A IPC has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. There are only t