RAM REKHA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari commanding upon the concerned respondents for quashing Koderma District order No. 780/2003 dated 9.12.2003 and Koderma District Order No. 803/2003 dated 16.12.2003 whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 5 partly modified the order vide Koderma District Order No. 780/2003 dated 9.12.2003 and again ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - from the salary of the petitioner in 25 equal installments without following due process of law. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to revoke the orders dated 9.12.2003 and 16.12.2003.

(2.) THE main contention raised by the petitioner is as to whether the action of the respondent in passing the impugned orders dated 9.12.2003 and 16.12.2003 was illegal and without jurisdiction and as to whether it was in total non -compliance of the well settled cardinal principles of natural justice. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the same cause of action the respondent cannot award double punishment.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was an arrogant police officer who did not discharge his duties legally as an Investigating Officer of Tillaiya P .S. Case No. 405 of 2001 and acted arbitrarily. It has also been submitted that a departmental proceeding vide No. 8 of 2002 was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding the allegation made by the petitioner against the then Officer -in -charge of Tillaiya Police Station was not found to be true and as per the report and the enquiry it was found that Anil Singh was not at fault in Case No. 405 of 2001. It has also been submitted that the order dated 9.12.2003 followed by order dated 16.12.2003 was passed by respondent No.5 as per the direction of National Human Rights Commission in Case No. 1118/341 2001 -02 on the petition of one Smt. Punam Devi, wife of Anil Singh. The petitioner was punished by National Human Rights Commission and on their direction recovery of Rs. 50,000/ - was ordered whereas in the departmental proceeding the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case and it was a separate cause of action. It was only in compliance to the order passed by the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand followed by D.I.G. of Police, Human Rights, Jharkhand that a direction was issued to deduct the amount of Rs. 50,000/ - from the salary of the petitioner in 25 equal installments. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon AIR 1993 S.C. page 1197 and has contended that in absence of any opportunity the order of deduction of Rs. 50.000/ - was bad in law.