BHIKHARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner at the relevant time served as Constable with the Government Railway Police, Patna. He has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 7.3.2000, Annexure-8A passed by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred to as D.G.-cum-I.G.) dismissing the petitioner from service in exercise of power under Rule 853A of the Bihar Police Manual, which empower the Inspector General to call for the file of any case and pass such order as he may deem fit within reasonable time. In the instant case, petitioner was punished by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the S.R.P.) under order dated 31.7.1997, Annexure-5 by withholding his two increments equivalent to imposition of three black marks differing with the enquiry report dated 30.7.1997, Annexure-4 submitted after conclusion of departmental proceeding no. 47/94. Perusal of the enquiry report, Annexure-4 would indicate that petitioner and two others, namely Sub-Inspector Satrughan Singh and Constable Parshuram Pal are alleged to have extorted Rs. 1 lac from retired Subedar Harbindar Singh and his two sons-in-law, namely, Kuldeep Singh and Sukhbinder Singh on 30.10.1994 while they boarded Himgiri Express, boggy no. S-2 berth nos. 49, 50 and 51 for going back to Amritsar from Patna. Petitioner and his accomplice are also alleged to have forced the retired Subedar, his two sons-in-law to detrain from Himgiri Express after pulling chain in Danapur Railway Station-yard, forcibly brought and confined them in the retiring room at Patna Junction until they arranged and paid sum of Rs. 1 lac. Retired Subedar had Rs. 43,000/- in his bag from before and he arranged Rs. 57,000/- from the market by calling his friend. After payment of Rs.1 lac the retired Subedar and his two sons-in-law were released from the illegal confinement. Next morning retired Subedar and his two sons-in-law boarded Punjab Mail for going back to Amritsar. After reaching Amritsar they reported the matter to the office bearers of Nose Pin Association, who advised the retired Subedar to first lodge a criminal case at Patna Junction. In response to such advice, Patna G.R.P. Case No. 260 of 1994 dated 13.11.1994 was lodged by the retired Subedar against three unknown for the offence under Sections 347, 384/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 14.11.1994 two persons approached the retired Subedar in the hotel where the three were staying and returned the sum of Rs. 1 lac. During investigation the case was supervised by the then S.R.P., Sri Alok Raj who examined the allegationist Subedar Harbinder Singh and his two sons-in-law on 13, 14 and 17.11.1994 and submitted supervision note under Memo No. 1528 dated 28.11.1994, wherefrom it appears that the allegationist had named the three culprits who extorted money from the allegationist on 30.10.1994 as Sub-Inspector Satrughan Singh, Constable Pal and Bhikhari.

(3.) In the light of the supervision note of the S.R.P. petitioner surrendered on 14.1.1995 and was put on Test Identification Parade on 24.2.1995 when Bijendar Lal who is said to have given loan of Rs. 57,000/- to the allegationist for securing his release did not identify the petitioner. Later petitioner was released from jail custody on 24.3.1995. During conduction of the departmental proceeding the allegationist and his two sons-in-law were examined in the proceeding on 20.4.1995 by the then Enquiry Officer, Sri Rapaz Chandra Kisku Chand but the allegationist and his sons-in-law did not name either the petitioner or his two accomplice as the one who extorted Rs. 1 lac from them on 30.10.1994 in the retiring room of Patna Junction. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer was changed and the matter remained pending until submission of the enquiry report dated 30.7.1997, Annexure-4 whereunder the Enquiry Officer noted in the enquiry report dated 30.7.1997 that the only evidence available against the petitioner is the findings of the S.R.P. contained in supervision report bearing Memo No. 1528 dated 28.11.1994 and recommended that the petitioner having not been named by the allegationist and his two sons-in-law in their statement dated 20.4.1995 be exonerated from the proceeding. The Enquiry Officer, however, noted in the report dated 30.7.1997 that petitioner was not present during the conduction of the proceeding for cross-examining the allegationist and his two sons-in-law as he apprehended that the officials of the department may forcibly get him identified. S.R.P., Patna differing with the enquiry report dated 30.7.1997 passed order dated 31.7.1997, Annexure-5 and thereunder punished the petitioner with stoppage of two increments equivalent to three black marks. Petitioner accepted the aforesaid punishment without any demur. Later petitioner was served with Memo No. 2852 dated 18.12.1999, Annexure-6 at the instance of the D.G.-cum-I.G., Bihar, Patna with reference to his power under Rule 853A of the Bihar Police Manual asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment imposed on him in connection with departmental proceeding No. 47/94 be not enhanced. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 18.12.1999, Annexure-6 petitioner submitted his reply dated 10.1.2000, Annexure-7 stating that power under Rule 853A of the Police Manual is required to be exercised within a reasonable time and not after more than two years of the imposition of the original punishment when petitioner has already undergone the punishment imposed under order dated 31.7.1997. In this connection, it was further pointed out in the show cause reply that the earlier punishment order dated 31.7.1997 was itself without jurisdiction as the same was passed without serving on the petitioner the reasons for differing with the findings/recommendations made in the enquiry report dated 30.7.1997 whereunder the Enquiry Officer recommended to exonerate the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. The D.G.-cum-I.G. considered the aforesaid show cause reply and passed the impugned order dated 7.3.2000, Annexure-8A enhancing the punishment from stoppage of two increments to dismissal from service. Perusal of impugned order, Annexure-8A indicates that thereunder petitioner has been dismissed from service considering the seriousness of the charge proved against him.