Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar, S/o. Late Tarkeshwar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 344 of 2022
Decided On : 12-09-2023
Prejudice - Departmental Proceeding - Rule 663 of Jharkhand Police Manual - The court discussed the appointment of the writ petitioner on humanitarian grounds and the influence of the higher authority on the lower authority for the appointment. The court highlighted the legal provisions of Rule 663 of the Jharkhand Police Manual and its interpretation in the context of public employment. The court found that the decision to remove the writ petitioner from service was not vitiated by the non-supply of relevant documents or the second show cause notice.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a constable, was dismissed from service based on allegations of obtaining the appointment through back door entry and fabricating documents. The appellant claimed prejudice due to non-supply of relevant documents and the second show cause notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the writ petitioner on humanitarian grounds was influenced by the higher authority, constituting a back door entry. The court held that the decision to remove the writ petitioner from service was not vitiated by the non-supply of relevant documents or the second show cause notice.
Issues: The issues included the influence of the higher authority on the appointment process, the alleged prejudice due to non-supply of relevant documents, and the validity of the decision to remove the writ petitioner from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 663 of the Jharkhand Police Manual and the implications of public employment under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that the decision to remove the writ petitioner from service was not vitiated by the non-supply of relevant documents or the second show cause notice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision to remove the writ petitioner from service.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. In pursuance of the order dated 28.08.2023, a report has been submitted by the learned Registrar General, basis upon which, explanation has been submitted by the Office.
2. We have perused the same. We are accepting the said explanation with caution to the Office not to repeat such type of mistake in future.
3. Let such explanation be kept on record.
4. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2450 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment of dismissal from service has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.
5. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which reads as under:-
6. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Constable vide memo no.1877 dated 19.05.1995 by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh on humanitarian grounds. The writ petitioner was posted in the District of Hazaribagh and since the date of joining, the petitioner started discharging his duties as Constable, thereafter, he was transferred in the district of Ranchi. All of a sudden while discharging his duties, he has receive memo no.1365 dated 25.03.2011, whereby, one draft charge has been issued wherein it has been alleged that the appointment of the petitioner has been made on the basis of forged documents which has been prepared by the petitioner himself, he has got his appointment in illegal manner. The said allegation has been leveled against the petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by one Birendra Kumar Verma, Inspector of Police, who was posted in the district of Chatra.
7. It is the further case of the writ petitioner/appellant that although, in the said inquiry the petitioner has never been issued any notice to defend his case, rather, on the basis of unwanted complaint, the inquiry has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner, even knowing the full facts that the petitioner was never posted in the district of Chatra. But the inquiry officer has not called for the entire records from the district of Hazaribagh or even not bothered to call for the records from the existing State of Bihar, but without verifying the said documents, the charge has been framed that the petitioner has got his appointment on the basis of forged documents and thereafter, draft charge has been issued asking the petitioner to give reply within a period of 15 days otherwise departmental proceeding will be initiated. From perusal of the draft charge dated 25.03.2011, it would be evident that the inquiry officer has only seen the document, which was lying in the district of Chatra, hence, the entire draft charge, having been based upon the wrong documents and on the basis of frivolous complaint, made by some unwanted persons, is misconceived.
8. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the main charge, i.e., the petitioner has got his appointment on the basis of forged document itself is absolutely false and illegal. The authority concerned has acted without any application of mind, because at one hand, it is stated that the departmental proceeding has already been initiated while on the other hand, the show cause reply has been sought for from the petitioner which suggests that asking reply to the show cause notice from the petitioner, was merely a formality and the respondents authorities have already initiated a departmental proceeding and made up their mind to dismiss the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved with the same, writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2450 of 2011 has been filed.
9. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner while working as Constable, he was departmentally proceeded by serving memo of charge on the allegation that he has obtained service as Constable by back door entry and by commission of fabric
AI
The decision to remove an employee from service may not be vitiated by the non-supply of relevant documents or the second show cause notice if the employee is aware of the allegations and there is no....
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
No pay cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, since the petitioner did not attend to work on account of illegal order of suspension and dismissal from service, passed by the appellants h....
The importance of providing a delinquent employee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and the consequences of non-participation in disciplinary proceedings.
The right to receive the enquiry report and a second show-cause notice is a fundamental aspect of the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, and failure to provide these rights in....
Non-observance of the principle of natural justice due to delayed supply of charge-sheet and relevant documents, and the violation of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rule....
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
