Patna High Court - Orders
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Ray vs The Union Of India & Ors on 16 June, 2014
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4316 of 2008
======================================================
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Ray, son of Sanchit Rai, resident of village-
Bhagwanpur, P.S. Dariyapur, District-Chapra ( Saran).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Home Secretary, New Delhi
2. The Home Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi
3. The Inspector General of Police, B.S. C.R.P.F, Patna, Bihar
4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Ashina Digha Road, Po
Ashiana Nagar, Patna
5. Commandant, 36 Battalian, C.R.P. F. ITI Complex Gaya, Bihar
6. Deputy Commadant, 36 Battalian, CRPF, Gaya, Bihar
7. Manoj Prasad son of Asharfi lal Rai, resident of village Chandpura, Post
Bhagwanpur, P. S. Parsa, District-Siwan ( Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Srivastava &
Mr. S.B.Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh (CGC)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
CAV ORDER
8 16-06-20141. The petitioner challenges an office order dated 30.10.2006 issued by the Commandant 36 Battalion CRPF ITI, Complex, Gaya, whereby and whereunder punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him with immediate effect. The order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Patna and the revisional authority dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Inspector General of Police, BS, CRPF, Patna are also under challenge, whereby his appeal and revision against the said order 2 of dismissal have been rejected.
2. Before I narrate the facts, I must observe that the Inquiry Officer in the present case adopted a unique procedure in the departmental proceeding before holding the petitioner guilty of the charge which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order of dismissal. One Manoj Prasad is said to have complained that one Sashi Bhushan Prasad Ray, on the pretext that he would arrange a job for him in CRPF, had taken a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. A preliminary enquiry was held thereafter and prima facie case for initiation of departmental proceeding was found against the petitioner. Accordingly, vide letter dated 6.5.2005 a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner containing the charge that he had taken a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from said Manoj Prasad as gratification on an assurance that he would get him employed in CRPF. The petitioner denied the charge in his written statement of defence and also stated that the preliminary enquiry was held behind his back inasmuch as statement of the said Manoj Prasad and his father Ashrafi Lal Rai was not recorded in his presence. One Amitabh Singh, Deputy Commandant 36, Battalion was appointed as Inquiry Officer. There is nothing on record to suggest that any presenting officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority to conduct the case of 3 the department before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner, who was examined first by the Inquiry Officer himself, denied the charges levelled against him. The Complainant Manoj Prasad was examined on 11.7.2005 by the Inquiry Officer. Though he stated in detail about the occurrence but he refused to recognize the petitioner as the person to whom he had given an amount of Rs. 1, 50,000/-. On the next day, i.e. 12.7.2005 father of Manoj Prasad, namely, Ashrafi Lal Rai was examined. He also gave detailed description of the occurrence but he also refused to recognize the petitioner as the person who had taken the money. Other prosecution witness, namely, Lalan Rai, was also examined who also did not support the charge. The petitioner was asked thereafter by the Inquiry Officer to submit his defence vide letter dated 17.9.2005 which the petitioner did. The petitioner was also examined on 17.9.2005 and 6.10.2005.
3. The pleading in the writ application is that thereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.10.2006.
4. After the enquiry Officer submitted his report, the disciplinary authority vide a communication dated 30.10.2006 asked the Inquiry Officer to verify the relationship between the petitioner and P.W.1 i.e. Manoj Prasad. The Inquiry Officer thereafter, proceeded to the villages of the complainant and his 4 father-in-law and inquired from the villagers, took their statement and learnt that the complainant and the petitioner were related and the petitioner was nephew ( Maternal) of the father-in-law of the complainant. He is said to have also learnt that in course of disciplinary proceeding some one else had deposed before the Inquiry Officer in place of father of the complainant Manoj Prasad. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer asked the complainant and his father to appear before him and give their statement particularly with respect to their relationship with the petitioner. In response, the said Manoj Prasad the complainant requested the enquiry officer not to proceed with the matter any further. The Inquiry Officer thereafter again informed the complainant and his father to appear before him. The Inquiry Officer thereafter on 28.4.2006 went to the residence of the complainant along with the petitioner but the complainant and his father were not found at the residence. The Inquiry Officer in the meanwhile, kept on informing the disciplinary authority regarding his visit to the village of the complainant. From the records of the disciplinary proceedings, which were directed to be produced before the Court, it appears that on 21.8.2006 the Inquiry Officer again took the petitioner to the house of the complainant. In course of that enquiry, it was found that the complainant and his father accepted 5 that the petitioner was the person who had taken the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was subsequently returned. The Officer- in-Charge of Parsa Police Station is also said to have confirmed the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant. The Inquiry Officer halted in the night of 21.6.2006 in the Parsa Police Station. It appears that on 22.6.2006 the complainant was called to the police station where his statement was recorded in the presence of the petitioner. The complainant in his statement alleged that the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as gratification. As per the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner refused to put his signature on the statement of the complainant's father Ashrafi Lal Rai and complainant Manoj Prasad taken on 20.8.2006 and 22.8.2006. The Inquiry Officer, thereafter, by letter dated 23.8.2006 asked the petitioner to submit his written report for which he was granted 15 days time and he was also allowed 15 days earned leave. On 29.8.2006 the complainant as well as his father wrote letters to the higher authorities alleging that the statement dated 21.8.2006 and 22.8.2006 were forcibly recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the police station. The record of the disciplinary proceeding would show that the statement of said complainant and his father Ashrafi Lal Rai were recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the police station in the presence of the Officer 6 Incharge of the Police Station. This would be apparent from the daily order-sheet maintained with the original records of the disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner thereafter, again submitted his defence on 9.9.2006 pursuant to the said communication dated 23.8.2006 of the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer thereafter, again submitted his report on 11.9.2006 holding the charges against the petitioner to have been proved. The disciplinary authority, based on the said Inquiry report imposed upon the petitioner punishment of dismissal from service by impugned order dated 30.10.2006. As has been indicated above, the petitioner preferred appeal against the said order of the disciplinary authority which was dismissed by an order dated 11.7.2007 by the Deputy Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Patna. His revision petition also came to be dismissed by an order dated 10.12.2007 by the Inspector General of Police, BS, C.R.P.F., Patna.
5. Most of the facts, as has been narrated hereinabove, are based on the pleadings in the writ application which have not been controverted in the counter affidavit. Keeping in mind the peculiarity of the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, this Court had directed learned Central Government Counsel to produce before this Court the original 7 records of the disciplinary proceeding. The records were accordingly, produced. The narration of the manner in which the departmental proceeding was conducted by the Inquiry Officer as mentioned above, is largely based on the original records of the disciplinary proceeding. On perusal of the records of the disciplinary proceeding, I find that there are two parts of the Inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer. As has been noted above, no presenting officer was appointed to prove the charge framed against the petitioner by the department. The Inquiry Officer himself examined the prosecution witnesses as well as the petitioner. Evidently, the prosecution witnesses did not support the charge of misconduct against the petitioner as the person to whom they had paid money against an assurance to get the complainant job in C.R.P. F. It is evident from the daily order- sheet maintained by the Inquiry Officer which is part of the record of the disciplinary proceeding that the Inquiry officer had submitted his report on 15.10.2005 itself on the basis of the material/evidence available on record till that date. I have not been able to locate the said report of the Inquiry Officer submitted by him on 15.10.2005 in the original records of the disciplinary proceeding produced before this Court.
6. The second part of the departmental enquiry starts 8 after the Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 15.10.2005 when the disciplinary authority on 30.10.2005 asked the Inquiry Officer to verify the relationship between the complainant and the accused. The Inquiry Officer from that stage started acting as an investigator. He himself went to the village of the complainant, the Parsa Police Station, village of the father-in- law of the complainant. He asked the complainant and his father to come to the police station Parsa and recorded their statement in the police station in the presence of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station. As per the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner refused to put his signature on the said statement of the complainant and his father recorded in the police station. The Inquiry Officer, in my opinion, completely failed to act as an impartial quasi judicial functionary and he assumed the role of investigator and a prosecutor. He started collecting material to prove the charge and took the help of the local Police Station for the said purpose. Such procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer, is deplorable. An Inquiry Officer is required to perform his functions fairly and reasonably. Further, from the records it appears that the Inquiry Officer put leading question to the petitioner and would appear from the records of the disciplinary proceeding dated 18.8.2006 which were impermissible. This view finds support from the 9 Supreme Court judgments reported in (2009) 2 SCC 541 ( Union of India Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon) and (2008) 3 SCC 484 (Mani Shankar vs. Union of India and another)
7. Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer to prove the charge levelled against the petitioner is also a measure procedural lapse as this resulted into making the Inquiry Officer act as a prosecutor.
8. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in holding that the entire disciplinary enquiry conducted against the petitioner is against the established principles of natural justice and fair play. The manner in which the enquiry was conducted cannot be approved and any decision based on such enquiry cannot be sustained. I accordingly, hold the enquiry report to be illegal and the same is therefore, quashed.
9. The order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of dismissal from service is also quashed. The orders of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority dated 11.7.2007 and 10.12.2007 are also quashed. I hold the petitioner's dismissal from service to be completely illegal and direct his reinstatement in service forthwith. He will be entitled for all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and allowances and other benefits as if 10 no such order of dismissal was ever passed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by respondent no.5, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner's back wages etc., which remained unpaid because of illegal order of termination must be calculated and paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
10. This application is accordingly, allowed.
11. Let original records of the Disciplinary proceedings be returned to the learned Central Government Standing counsel.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/-