Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Vikash Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 952 of 2017
Decided On : 15-02-2024
[DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY] - [MAJOR PUNISHMENT] - [Rule 824, Rule 828 of the Police Manual, Articles 14, 21, 311(2) of the Constitution, Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors.] - [The court discussed the definitions of major and minor punishments as per the Police Manual, emphasizing that the forfeiture of an increment is a major punishment requiring adherence to procedural safeguards, including the issuance of a second show cause notice. The court highlighted the principles of natural justice and the necessity of providing the delinquent with the enquiry report prior to the imposition of punishment, as established in the cited Supreme Court case. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to set aside the punishment order and remand the matter for reconsideration.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the forfeiture of an increment for six months, deemed a major punishment, imposed by the Commandant of JAP-5. The petitioner argued that the punishment was upheld without a second show cause notice, violating procedural fairness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment imposed was indeed a major punishment under the Police Manual, and the failure to issue a second show cause notice constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice, as established by precedent.
Issues: Whether the forfeiture of an increment constituted a major punishment requiring a second show cause notice, and whether the disciplinary proceedings adhered to the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that major punishments cannot be imposed without a second show cause notice, as this is a requirement of natural justice and procedural fairness, supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the punishment orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh decision in compliance with legal requirements.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Prasad, J.
The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the Memo No. 273 dated 30.9.2015 (Annexure-6) communicated vide Memo No. 2766 dated 06.11.2015, issued by the Commandant of JAP-5, passed in Departmental Enquiry No. 26 of 2015, wherein the Commandant have ordered for forfeiture of an increment for the period of six months, which is equivalent to one Black mark.
Further Prayer has also been made for quashing the Memo No. 1407 dated 09.6.2015 (Annexure 8), passed by the Deputy Inspector General, JAP in Appeal preferred by the petitioner against order of Commandant, which was communicated vide memo no. 1508 dated 18.6.2015 through the office of the Commandant JAP-5
It is further prayed that Memo No. 397 dated 24.10.2016, issued by the Inspector General of Police (Training) in the appeal preferred by the present petitioner, which was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for further appeal before the Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police (Training) Government of Jharkhand, which was communicated by the office of Commandant JAP-5 vide Memo No. 2643 dated 04/11/2016 (Annexure10).
2. Heard Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhinay Kumar, learned A.C. to G.A.-I for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned punishment order dated 30.09.2015, i.e. Annexure-6, passed by the Commandant JAP-5, Deoghar, by which his increment for six months have been forfeited, which is equivalent to one ‘Black’ Mark, is a major punishment.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 824 and 828 of the Police Manual and submitted that the as per Rule 828 of the Police Manual, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is a Major Punishment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order of punishment was upheld by the appellate authority without issuance of second show cause notice, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and also on order dated 21.09.2022, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1953 of 2019 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
It is submitted that in view of the above, the prayer of the petitioner requires reconsideration by the authority concerned.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayers made by the petitioner and has submitted that the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner is a minor punishment and will not come in the definition of major punishment and therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed.
5. Perused the record of this case and considered the submission of both the sides.
6. Relevant part of 828 of the Police Manual is as follows:-
(a) Of the punishments permitted by rule 824, the items in serial (a) to (f) of that rule shall be regarded as major punishments, and shall be inflicted by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent.
(b) Without prejudice to the provision of the public Servants Enquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement of reduction shall be passed on any police officer (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself.”
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that Rule 824 of the Police Manual provides for different punishments in Departmental Proceeding, whereas Rule 828 describes that items in Serial No.s (a) to (f) of the Rule 824 shall be regarded as Major punishment and shall be inflicted by an officer not below the
The imposition of major punishments in departmental inquiries necessitates adherence to procedural safeguards, including the issuance of a second show cause notice, to ensure compliance with the prin....
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of supplying the enquiry report before imposing punishment, as clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The failure to supply the enquiry report and show cause notice caused prejudice to the writ petitioner. The punishment imposed must be within the authority of law as prescribed in the list of punishm....
Non-supply of enquiry report before penalty and non-communication violate natural justice, vitiating disciplinary action; matter remitted for fresh compliance.
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
