The determination of misconduct lies primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority, and the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against an order dated 5th July 2023 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7214 of 2017 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The writ petition was filed challenging the following orders:

(a) The punishment order dated 18.02.2015 passed by respondent no. 5, inter-alia, on the ground that punishment has been passed without considering Rule 557A of Jharkhand Police Manual.

(b) The appellate order dated 27.05.2016 passed by respondent no. 4 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

(c) The order dated 09.11.2016 passed by respondent no. 3 dismissing the memorial on the point of limitation.

3. The appellant was imposed punishment of three black marks (equivalent to forfeiture of two annual increments) by observing that the same would not affect the future increment with a further direction to forfeit the salary and allowance payable to the appellant for the dismissal period (9th January 2004 to 19th August 2009) on the basis of ‘no work no pay’ and the said period has been directed to be adjusted against extraordinary leave making further observation that during the suspension period, nothing would be payable to the petitioner except the subsistence allowance already paid to him.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the writ Court’s order has submitted that the writ Court has not taken into consideration the fact that there has been violation of the statutory provision of Rule 557A of the Jharkhand Police Manual inasmuch as for escorting two prisoners only one constable, that is, the appellant was deputed although two constables were required to be deputed. The learned counsel has further submitted that only one prisoner out of two escaped and the appellant was helpless as the appellant had to take care of the other prisoner. The learned counsel has submitted that if the appellant was to run to get hold of the escaping prisoner the other one would have also escaped. The learned counsel has further submitted that it has come during the inquiry that the prisoner who escaped had sprinkled chili powder in the eyes of the appellant and the situation was absolutely out of control.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer of the appellant and submitted that the appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the same was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law and the inquiry officer has found that the charges relating negligence, dereliction of duty etc. were proved. The learned counsel has also submitted that at earlier stage the revisional authority has remanded the matter for fresh inquiry and after conducting the same, inquiry report was submitted against the appellant and there was no perversity or illegality in the matter of the departmental proceedings calling for any interference under writ jurisdiction and, accordingly, the writ petition has been rightly dismissed. The learned counsel has further submitted that on account of the negligence on the part of the appellant one dreaded criminal had escaped and, therefore, the punishment imposed upon the appellant also does not call for any interference.

6. The foundational facts are not in dispute.

7. The appellant while working as a constable was served with a charge-sheet dated 13th March 2003 alleging that when he was posted at Sadar Court, Dhanbad, he had helped a dreaded criminal namely, Md. Rinku in escaping from Court Hazat, Dhanbad on 11th March 2003 by deliberately conniving with him and untying his handcuffs, which showed his gross negligence, dereliction of duty, indiscipline and dubious conduct. Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the appellant was dismissed with effect from 9th January 2004 and the appeal was also dismissed.

8. However, the order of dismissal was set aside vide order dated 5th March 2008 passed by the respondent no. 2 remanding