BIJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 13.3.2003 and 13.4.2003 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad as contained in Annexures 5 and 8 whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of stoppage of one annual increment of pay which would amount to two black marks in his service record and forfeiture of his pay for the period from 29.2.2000 to 30.12.2000 (total 307 days) and for a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner 'ssalary of the said period in view of the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Ranchi Zone, Ranchi (respondent No. 3). The petitioner further prayed for a direction to the respondents to promote and post him as Inspector of Police from the date the other similarly situated persons have been given promotion and posted as such.

(2.) THE petitioner 'scase is that he was appointed as Inspector of Police in the year 1980. After completing training the police training college, the petitioner was posted at different places and since March 1987 he is posted in Dhanbad. By Memo No. 1466 dated 5.4.2000, the petitioner was served with a charge -sheet (Annexure -1) initiating a departmental proceeding being No. 111/2000. The charge was that he was relieved by Dhanbad District Order No. 263/2000 w.e. f. 1.3.2000 for Special Branch Bihar, Patna but he avoided to receive the said order and remained absent and did not join the transferred place which is an act of indiscipline and serious misconduct. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Law & Order), Dhanbad was appointed Enquiry -cum - Conducting Officer. The petitioner filed his detailed show cause reply (Annexure -2) denying the charges and stating, inter alia, that due to serious protracted illness, he was unable to discharge his duly and he had given due information to the department. Initially he was suffering from Typhoid which was followed by Jaundice and low back pain and all along he was under the treatment of a local doctor and was in bed rest as per the medical advice till 29.2.2000. The enquiry officer after taking evidences and completing the enquiry, submitted his report dated 30.9.2002 (Annexure -3) holding the petitioner not guilty of the charges. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, who is the disciplinary authority, differed with the conclusion of the enquiry officer and by his Memo No. 6954 dated 27.11.2002 as contained in Annexure -4 recommended for adjusting the period of absence against the earned leave. He thereafter forwarded the file of the proceeding to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Range, Bokaro. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad (respondent No. 5) issued another order by Memo No. 907 dated 13.3.2003 (Annexure -5) modifying his earlier order dated 27.11.2002 whereby it was observed that for serious illness like Typhoid, the petitioner should have taken treatment from any specialized doctor in a good Government hospital, but he took the treatment of Dr. M. Pd. who is an ordinary doctor and as such on his certificate the petitioner cannot be given pay for the period from 29.2.2000 to 31.12.2000 (307 days) which would otherwise amount to encouraging indiscipline in the department. It is relevant to mention that by order dated 9.1.01 (Annexure -6) the petitioner 's transfer to the Special Branch, Bihar, Patna was cancelled and he was adjusted in Dhanbad District Police. Subsequently, Memo No. 43 dated 27.2.2003 (Annexure -7) issued from the office of the Director General of Police -cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the petitioner along with others was given promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police and he was waiting for his posting along with others. According to the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad issued the order of posting of similarly situated persons, but no order was issued for his posting as Inspector of Police rather in order to frustrate the order of his promotion, the Superintendent of Police Dhanbad (respondent No. 5) again passed the third order in the name of final order dated 13.4.2003 (Annexure -8), whereby in the same Departmental Proceeding No. 111/2000, the petitioner has been held guilty of absence from duty from 29.2.2000 to 31.12.2000 for a period of 306 days and the pay of the said period has been forfeited and the said period has been adjusted against extra ordinary leave. The petitioner 'sone annual increment of pay has been stopped which tantamount to two black marks in his service record. It is pertinent to mention that by Memo No. 1196 dated 23.7.2001, the Inspector General of Police, Ranchi Zone had ordered the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad to adjust the petitioner 'speriod of illness from 29.2.2000 to 30.12.2000 against the admissible earned leave and to pay his salary after sanctioning the said leave. According to the petitioner, ignoring the finding of the enquiry officer and the order of the Inspector General of Police as well as the rules, procedures and provisions of law, the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad (respondent No. 5) strangely passed three different orders one after the other and the last order Annexure -8 has been arbitrarily passed just after the order of promotion and on that ground the petitioner 'spromotion has been withheld.

(3.) DR . S.N. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 13.3.2003 (Annexure -5) and the order dated 13.4.2003 (Annexure -8) are wholly arbitrary, illegal ' and without jurisdiction as the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad has no authority in law to modify the order dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure -4) which was once passed by him. Learned counsel submitted that the Superintendent of Police, being the disciplinary authority, once having applied his mind and passed the order dated 27.11.2002 directing adjustment of the period of ten months against the earned leave, cannot change his earlier order and cannot pass different orders as contained in Annexure -5 & 8 whereby the petitioner 's salary of the said period has been sought to be forfeited and the petitioner 'sincrement of one year has been stopped which amounts to two black marks in his service record. Learned counsel submitted that even the order as contained in Annexure -4 was whimsical and wholly without any basis and the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before disagreeing with the conclusion of the enquiry officer.