HARKHEN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While the petitioner was posted as Constable in JAP-6 at Jamshedpur, written complaints were made before the Commandant alleging therein that the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs. 2500/- from Deo Kumar Singh and a sum of Rs. 5000/- from Gopal Prasad Sinha, both retired persons, on the plea that he will do needful in the matter relating to grant of pension to them but he did not do anything and therefore, on being asked, the petitioner did return a sum of Rs. 2500/- to Deo Kumar Singh but he did not return the money to ex-Havildar Gopal Prasad Sinha. On receiving such complaint, Commandant JAP-6, Jamshedpur entrusted enquiry to the Deputy Superintendent of police, Sadan Kumar Srivastava, who after holding enquiry found the allegation to be true Thereupon, notice was issued to the petitioner on 9.12.2002 to submit his show cause. The show cause submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and hence, a departmental proceeding no. 5 of 2003 was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer/Conducting officer after holding enquiry did find the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority passed an order, as contained in memo no. 260 dated 11.7.2003 (Annexure 4), whereby the petitioner was made to retire compulsorily. The said order has been challenged to be bad.

(2.) Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer is completely erroneous as both the complainants, namely, ex-Havildar Gopal Prasad Sinha and ex-A.S.I. Deo Kumar Singh during enquiry did not support the allegation of taking money from them, whereas other witness, namely, S.K. Srivastava, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, who held preliminary enquiry is a hearsay witness and as such, it was a case of ho evidence. Therefore, the order of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner of compulsory retirement is illegal and is fit to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel further submits that though the High Court is not supposed to interfere with the finding of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but in case of no evidence, it would always be open for the Court to go into the merit of the case and if it is found that the finding recorded is based on no evidence, the order of punishment warrants to be set aside.