HAVALDAR DEONARAYAN TAMOLI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE Memo No. 49 dated 05.02.2001, petitioner has been served with a chargesheet, whereby, he has been accused of giving the statement on 05.01.2001 in the Court of Shri P.N. Maurya, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class against the Prosecution which is allegedly, likely to adversely affect the prosecution case. He has been further charged of giving such a statement despite a warning by the Additional Public Prosecutor. Petitioner was suspended on 19 th of January, 2001 and on the basis of aforesaid allegations, he was accused of undutiful, doubtful integrity and indiscipline. As per the chargesheet against him, he was on duty in the court premises, where one accused, namely, Santu Singh S/o Mahadeo Singh was brought on 29 th of November, 1999 in the court of Sadar Court, Daltonganj. It is alleged that the said accused fled away because of the negligence on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforementioned charges a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry officer found that petitioner was in another Court when the accused fled away. However, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increments of salary for two years with three black marks in his service record vide Order dated 12 th of April, 2002. An Appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the D.I.G. cum -Appellate authority which resulted in dismissal vide his order dated 17.10.2002 contained in Memo No. 950. Petitioner preferred another Appeal before the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi. This Appeal also came to be rejected by the D.G.P. vide his order dated 09 th of December, 2003 being not maintainable on the ground that as per Rule 853 of Bihar Police Manual, he was competent to hear Appeals only against dismissal and compulsory retirement. Petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority and the Appellate authorities as contained in Annexures -4, 5 and 7 respectively.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed, petitioner has been accused of making a statement in the Court against the interest of the Prosecution, which is likely to affect the prosecution case.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The charge against the petitioner is that he has made statement against the prosecution in the Court, which is likely to adversely affect the Prosecution case. It is not in dispute that when the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, the trial in which the petitioner had appeared as a witness was still pending. The Enquiry officer as also the Disciplinary Authority have categorically observed that petitioner was in another Court at the time of occurrence. After returning such a finding, there was no occasion for the Disciplinary Authority to have found the petitioner guilty of making a statement against the prosecution. It is also not the case of the Respondents that the petitioner made any false statement deliberately. Merely because the statement of the petitioner did not favour the Prosecution is no ground to hold him guilty of Service misconduct. Petitioner has specifically stated in the writ petition and also pleaded that he made an honest and truthful statement. He also pleaded that he was in another Court, which fact has been accepted by the Enquiry Officer as also by the Disciplinary Authority. Then there was no occasion for the Disciplinary authority to have imposed any kind of punishment upon the petitioner. As a matter of fact petitioners statement has to be evaluated by the competent court of law in the Criminal Proceedings in Daltonganj City P.S. Case No. 409 of 1999. When the petitioner was charge sheeted and Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against him and concluded, there was no finding of the Competent Criminal Court about the falsity of the statement of the petitioner. Giving false evidence/statement in a Court of law is a criminal offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196 of I.P.C. Whenever such an offence is committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court, a person is liable to be tried in accordance with the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an Enquiry is required to be conducted in accordance with the Procedure prescribed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relevant extracts of Sections 195 and Section 340 are reproduced hereunder: 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful, authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. - (1) No Court shall take cognizance. (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation, to any proceeding in any Court, or 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. - (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Clause (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case maybe, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court, may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -