MD. SHAHID Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the order of punishment dated 15.03.2014 (Annexure-11), passed in Departmental Proceeding No. 5/2012, whereby punishment of "compulsory retirement" has been imposed on the petitioner, as well as, no salary except the salary given during the period of suspension is to be given to the petitioner. Further direction has been issued to delete the name of the petitioner from the entire registers of the official records. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 30.04.2014 (Annexure-13) confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to the respondents to immediately reinstate the petitioner to the post of Constable (Hawaldar) and to pay the entire salary for the period, during which, he was kept out of service and for declaring the action of the respondents illegal, void and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that while the petitioner was working as Constable under the Jharkhand Armed Police, 10, Mahila Bataliyan, Ranchi, a complaint was made against him by one Hari Lal Rana along with 28 others, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner has taken Rs. 7,00,000.00 in the name of providing employment to the aforesaid complainants in different posts under the Jharkhand Armed Police. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the petitioner was immediately suspended vide order dated 10.09.2011 and a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent, Jharkhand Armed Police and in the report dated 002012 has been submitted against the petitioner and he was further asked to file his reply to the aforesaid charges. The petitioner vide his letter dated 28.02012, submitted his reply denying the charges. A departmental proceeding No. 5 of 2012 has been initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was given opportunity to appear and defend himself in the departmental proceeding. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and controverted the entire allegations by stating that he does not know any of the complainants including Hari Lal Rana. The petitioner further stated that the said Hari Lal Rana may have given money to one Rahul Mehra as well as to one P.K. Singh i.e. (as stated by Hari Lal Rana), who have no concern with the petitioner and the petitioner is nowhere related to the aforesaid complaints in any manner whatsoever. So far as the Mobile nos. 8298038238 and 9905141149 as indicated by the complainants are concerned, out of aforesaid two Mobile nos., one belongs to the petitioner, but, it could not be corroborated/established with any cogent evidence that the complainant, Hari Lal Rana has ever talked to the petitioner, therefore, merely because the complainant Hari Lal Rana has the Mobile number of the petitioner, the same is not sufficient itself to establish that the petitioner is linked to the complainant in any manner or has not committed any illegality, as alleged against him but the petitioner states that he again filed a detailed reply controverting the entire charges against him vide letter dated 15.03.201 The Enquiry Officer submitted report and on the basis of the aforesaid findings of the conducting officer, the disciplinary Authority has been pleased to impose a punishment vide Memo dated 26.05.2012 of compulsory retirement along with deletion of the name of the petitioner from the entire registers of the official records of Jharkhand Armed Police and has also been directed that the petitioner is not entitled for save and except the amount of salary received by him during the period of suspension. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Jharkhand Armed Police vide his memo of appeal, dated 06.08.2012 and the said appeal has been rejected vide Memo dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure-8). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 7622 of 2012 challenging the appellate order as well as the impugned order of punishment and the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 111.2013 and the matter has been remitted to the disciplinary authority for fresh decision from the stage of serving the copy of the inquiry report and the second show cause. Thereafter, the second show cause notice along with the inquiry report was given to the petitioner and accordingly, he submitted his reply and after considering all the facts, the respondents again issued the order of compulsory retirement vide Memo No. 714, dated 15.03.2014 (Annexure-11). Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner again preferred appeal on 27.03.2014 and raised all the points but the same has not been considered and the appeal has been rejected vide Memo dated 30.04.2014 (Annexure-13).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted with vehemence that the entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in a perfunctory manner, since out of 28 persons, who complained, only 14 persons were examined and none of them have supported the case of the petitioner saying that the petitioner has taken money, but the respondents authority on the basis of suspicion, as transpired from the enquiry report itself, has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been said to be proved, therefore, the action of the respondents in inflicting the punishment vide Annexure-11 in the absence of any concrete evidence amounts to colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the disciplinary authority in imposing punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate to the magnitude of charge as none of the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and all are based on mere surmises and conjectures. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2002) 7 SCC 142 para 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the disciplinary authority by taking into consideration the past records of the petitioner, has passed the impugned order of punishment. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2010) 11 SCC 278, para 22, 23 and 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellate authority without applying his judicious mind, rejected the appeal without any cogent reasons. Had the appellate authority applied his mind and appreciated the facts and evidences adduced by the petitioner in its right perspective afresh, then he would certainly either have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has wrongly been held guilty in the instant case and he would have exonerated the petitioner from all charges but the appellate authority did not chose to go into the practical aspects of the allegations as well as the allegations in itself are controversial to each other. On bare perusal of the enquiry report of the conducting Officer as well as the complaint, it would be amply clear that the charges revolves around one Rahul Mehra and other one P.K. Singh, but without ascertaining about the genuineness of the said allegations, the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority have erred in law by punishing the petitioner for the alleged misconduct in the pseudo name of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner by assailing the impugned order passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority being cryptic and non-reasoned, has referred to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713, paragraphs 33, 35 and 36.