CIVIL PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of dismissal passed by Annexure -6 by the D.I.G. and also the appellate order passed by the D.G.P. as contained in Annexure -8.

(2.) THE petitioner was a Sub -Inspector of Police. There was a truck seized allegedly loaded with stolen mustard oil. Some employees of the particular Police Station Tisra demanded bribe and Rs. 20,000.00 was paid, which was subsequently recovered from the possession of Laljee Mishra. It appears that the petitioner, who was on duty, left the police station without informing this matter to his superior. Subsequently, Tisra P.S. Case No. 109/1994 was filed, which is still unconcluded and pending trial. In the meantime, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and in the departmental proceedings, charges were found proved and the petitioner was recommended to be dismissed by the S.P. The then D.I.G. stayed the departmental proceedings. Subsequently, it was submitted that after six years, a new incumbent to the office of the D.I.G. directed for a fresh enquiry and after submission of the enquiry report, the D.I.G. passed the order of dismissal, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner had also come to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 1054/ 1998(R) for quashing the depart -mental proceedings. That prayer was rejected and the Court directed to conclude the proceedings after notice to the petitioner. This order was passed on 19.8.1999. The impugned order has been assailed on the grounds that (i) the witnesses were cross -examined behind the back of the petitioner and there was no information that the witnesses will be cross -examined, (ii) the previous statements made by a few witnesses, particularly Amar Nath Rai, Rabinder Singh and Anil Singh, were used against the petitioner, though the copies of the previous statements made by them had not been supplied to the petitioner, (iii) the subsequent D.I.G. had no jurisdiction (this is one of the questions framed) to review the order of stay of the proceedings passed by his predecessor, (iv) under the Police Manual, Rule 853 -A D.I.G. is not competent to pass an order of dismissal and therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned order of dismissal is beyond jurisdiction and (v) the D.G.P., in his appellate jurisdiction, did not consider these aspects of the matter, though these points were in the memorandum of appeal, Annexure -7. Ram Narayan Sharma Versus State Of Jharkhand

(3.) IN course of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kuldeep Singh V/s. Commissioner of Police reported in (1999) L&S SCC 429 and on Rule 853 -A of the Police Manual submitted that the previous statements, if not supplied to the proceedee, cannot be used against him without affording a reasonable opportunity to him for cross -examining the witnesses and further he relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Bhupinder Pal Singh V/s. Director General of Civil Aviation and Ors. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 633 for the same purpose to say that if the reasonable opportunity is not given to cross -examine the witnesses, that evidence cannot be used.