IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 1317 of 2018

Rajesh Kujur....

….. Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Ranchi.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range,

Ranchi.

4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi.

… Respondents.

-----

CORAM

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

------

For the petitioner(s):

M/s Diwakar Upadhyay, Abhilasha Kumari

and Shivam Agarwal, Advocates. .

For the respondent(s):

Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to AAG-V

------

04/16.01.2023:

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order

dated 5.6.2013 as contained in Memo No. 5307 passed by the Disciplinary

Authority in Disciplinary Proceeding No. 20/2013 by which, the petitioner has been

dismissed from service. The Appellate order as contained in Memo No. 3530

dated 13.9.2013 confirming the order of termination is also under challenge.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that minimum educational

qualification for driver constable in Police Department is Class-VII. Admittedly, the

petitioner has passed Class-VII and the documents which the petitioner had

produced before the authority at the time of his appointment was by the mistake.

She also submits that the punishment is too harsh.

3.

Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has accepted

his guilt and it is admitted that the documents which were produced by the

petitioner were forged.

4.

Pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2009, and after completion of

formalities, the petitioner was appointed as a driver constable in Police

Department. He produced his educational certificates and documents, which was

sent for verification. The Bihar School Examination Board sent a report that the

certificate which the petitioner has produced actually does not relates to him,

rather it is of another person, as per the records maintained by them. This fact

was also verified by the respondents and was found to be correct.

5.

An FIR being Bariatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No. 294 of 2012 under

Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was instituted against the petitioner. The

petitioner was also chargesheeted departmentally for producing fake and forged

documents. Enquiry Officer after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and after

examining the witnesses concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the charge.

Second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter he was

dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 5.6.2013 as contained in

Memo No. 5307. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed.

6.

In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

2.

especially in judicial review, scope of interference by this Court in a

departmental proceeding is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case

of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus

Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at paragraph 37,

thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court cannot act as an Appellate

Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry officer.

By referring to judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree

Rama Rao, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

that it is not the function of the High Court to review on the findings and arrive at a

different decision. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well

settled that the High Court can interfere only when the departmental authority has

acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings are based on

no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided. Further, if the

punishment imposed is excessive, the Court can interfere. It has also been held

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution

of India,