Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
Krishna Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 1889 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 1917 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 1636 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 1922 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 1924 of 2021
Decided on : 09-02-2024
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - PENALTY ORDERS IN POLICE DISCIPLINE CASES - Jharkhand Police Manual, Rule 828, Appendix 49; Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to cross-examine witnesses and the requirement for a fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings. It emphasized that the failure to provide such rights can lead to the quashing of disciplinary actions. The court also highlighted the distinction between criminal acquittal and departmental proceedings, asserting that acquittal does not automatically imply innocence in disciplinary contexts. The court upheld the disciplinary authority's findings, stating that the evidence presented met the standard of preponderance of probabilities, justifying the dismissal of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, constables in the Ranchi District Force, were charged with misconduct after allegedly extorting money from a medical store while posing as narcotics officers. They were dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry that they claimed violated principles of natural justice, particularly their right to cross-examine witnesses. They were acquitted in a related criminal case, which they argued should lead to their reinstatement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were given ample opportunity to defend themselves during the inquiry and that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law. The court ruled that the acquittal in the criminal case did not equate to an honorable acquittal in the context of disciplinary proceedings, and the evidence against the petitioners was sufficient to uphold their dismissal.
Issues: 'Whether the petitioners have been honourably acquitted?', 'Whether the punishment inflicted shocks the judicial conscience and is disproportionate to the charges?', 'Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charges against the petitioners?'
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically affect disciplinary proceedings, which operate under different standards of proof. It emphasized that the disciplinary authority's findings should not be interfered with unless there is a clear violation of natural justice or the conclusions are arbitrary. The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, finding no procedural flaws in the inquiry.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all writ petitions, affirming the penalty orders and the findings of the disciplinary authority.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. PATHAK, J.
In all these writ petitions, common questions of law are involved and the facts are also almost similar, as such, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order with the consent of the parties.
2. Heard the parties.
Prayer
3. The petitioners have challenged their penalty orders, appellate orders and the revisional orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority respectively.
4. In W.P.(S) No. 1889 of 2021, the penalty order contained in District Order No. 4195/2019 dated 30.8.2019 (Annexure-6) is under challenge. The appellate order contained in Memo No. 1378 dated 27.4.2020 (Annexure-8) and the revisional order contained in Memo No. 242 dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-10) are also under challenge.
5. In W.P.(S) No. 1917 of 2021, the penalty order contained in District Order No. 4195/2019 dated 30.8.2019 (Annexure-6), appellate order contained in Memo No. 1376 dated 27.4.2020 (Annexure-8) and the revisional order contained in Memo No. 229 dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-10) are under challenge.
6. Similarly, in W.P.(S) No. 1636 of 2021, the penalty order contained in District Order No. 4193/2019 dated 30.8.2019 (Annexure-6), appellate order contained in Memo No. 1375 dated 27.4.2020 (Annexure-8) and the revisional order contained in Memo No. 243 dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-10) are under challenge.
7. Further, in W.P.(S) No. 1922 of 2021, the penalty order contained in District Order No. 4196/2019 dated 30.8.2019 (Annexure-6), appellate order contained in Memo No. 1380 dated 27.4.2020 (Annexure-8) and the revisional order contained in Memo No. 231 dated 12.12.2020 (Annexure-10) are also under challenge.
8. In W.P.(S) No. 1924 of 2021, the penalty order contained in District Order No. 4192/2019 dated 30.8.2019 (Annexure-6) is under challenge. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order contained in Memo No. 1379 dated 27.4.2020 (Annexure-8) and the revisional order contained in Memo No. 244 dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-10).
The Facts
9. For the purpose of convenience and to avoid repetition of details, the facts of W.P.(S) 1889 of 2021 are only taken into consideration, as the facts of other cases are covered in this writ petition.
10. All the petitioners were appointed in Ranchi District Force as Constable in the year 2008-2015. They were proceeded departmentally by framing memo of charge on 20.12.2018. The charge against the petitioners is that on 8.12.2018 in the evening at 6.00 pm, two persons went to medical store, namely, Life Plus Medical Store’ and demanded a cough syrup. Two more police personnel in police uniform and one person in civil dress came and disclosed to the staff of the said medical store that they are from Narcotics Department. They told that the shop was selling duplicate medicines and therefore, the staff should call the owner of the shop. All the persons were identified to be the police personnel in the footage of camera installed in the shop. In this way, Rs. 30,000/-was cheated, which led to lodging of FIR, being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 625 of 2018 dated 8.12.2018 for the offence under sections 452, 420, 386/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge further shows that in this way, the image of Ranchi Police was tarnished by the petitioners. Thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated. The petitioners submitted their respective written statements of defence to the enquiry officer-cum-Assistant Superintendent of Police. The petitioners denied the charges so alleged. The defence taken is that the petitioners went to the said medical store to purchase medicine, but some altercations took place between the staff of the medical store and the petitioners and therefore, a concocted and manufactured story was cooked up, which led to lodging of the FIR and the departmental proceeding. Altogether four witnesses were examined during the departmental proceeding, namely, Ajit Kumar Vimal Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kotwali, Jay Praka
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....
Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not negate the authority's power to impose disciplinary action when misconduct is proven by preponderance of probabilities.
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 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.
The court held that a disciplinary dismissal based on unproven charges is unjustified, especially when the employee is acquitted in related criminal proceedings.
The findings in the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on the same set of facts, and acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the individual to relief in departmental....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the disciplinary authority to follow the principles of natural justice and impose proportionate punishment, considering the discretion....
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
