Jharkhand High Court
Ram Mohan Nath Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 18 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(4)JCR432(JHR)]
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of punishment passed by the respondents as Disciplinary Authority as also the appellate authority whereby the petitioner has been removed from service after holding departmental inquiry.
2. The petitioner is a constable in CISF unit BLSM, Bhawnathpur. In 1994 he was served with a memo of charge dated 23.11.1994 by the Commandant, The charges are as follows :
Article-I--Gross misconduct and indiscipline in that No. 874580044 Const. R.M.N. Singh of CISF Unit, BLSM, Bhawanatpur while undergoing rotational training at CISF Unit BSL Bokaro, at about 21.51 hrs. on 30.9.1994 threatened Cost L. Tirkey of Crime Section by pointing out a long knife (gupti) with dire consequences.
Article-II--Gross indiscipline and misconduct in that No. 874580044 Const. R.M.N. Singh of CISF Unit, BLSM, Bhawanatpur, while undergoing rotational training, at CISF Unit BSL Bokaro, at about 21.15 hrs on 30.9.1994 he threatened and terrorized Const(sic) Tirkey of Crime Section stating that he will kidnap his wife and children.
"Article-III--According to the Service Book the No. 874580044 Const. R.M.N. Singh had been awarded 1 number of major and 12 number of minor punishments for various delinquencies. He is a proclaimed offender of absenting from duty post. Can not become a good Constable."
3. The petitioner submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and an Inquiry Officer was appointed for conducting inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the effect that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the inquiry report issued show cause notice to the petitioner and finally held that the finding of the Inquiry Officer has been recorded in accordance with the rules and procedures and order of punishment by way of removal from service has been passed. The petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority which was finally dismissed and the order of removal from service of the petitioner was affirmed.
4. Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment as being illegal and perverse in law. Learned counsel submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are only of giving threats to Mr. L. Tirkey of SIW Section. No overt act was actually committed by the petitioner nor any loss or injury was actually caused to any person. Learned counsel further drew my attention to relevant paragraphs of the inquiry report and submitted that even the prosecution witnesses have admitted in their cross-examination that they did not identify the person who actually threatened Mr. L. Tirkey. On the basis of solitary evidence of Mr. Tirkey the Inquiry Officer recorded a positive finding against the petitioner.
5. Admittedly, the delinquent was posted in CISF Unit and he was attending the rotation force at CISF, TSF, Bokaro. The charge against the petitioner is that on the relevant dated at about 21.15 hrs. he came to the Unit Headquarters' main gate on a red motorcycle. While Mr. Tirkey was talking with another person the petitioner alleged to have taken a long knife and placed it on the stomach of Mr. Tirkey and threatened him to cause injury. It is also alleged that he uttered that he would kidnap his wife and children. The Inquiry Officer in his report reproduced the statements of the prosecution witnesses who, except a few, have stated that they did not identify the person who actually threatened Mr. Tirkey. On assumption and on solitary evidence the Inquiry Officer came to a finding that the person who arrived at the scene of occurrence on a red motorcycle was none else but the petitioner.
6. As stated above, merely a threat was given to Mr. Tirkey by the petitioner. In fact, neither any injury was caused to him nor any overt act of kidnapping of Mr. Tirkey, his wife or children was committed, or any other mischief was committed by the petitioner.
7. Mr. M.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Central Government very fairly admitted that no physical injury was caused to CISF personnels who reported the matter to the headquarters and it was merely a threat alleged to have been given by the petitioner. The punishment by way of removal from service appear to be excessive, but having regard to the fact that the petitioner was earlier awarded punishment for his deficiencies, he is liable to be inflicted some punishment in view of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
8. In my opinion, therefore, the matter needs reconsideration by the Disciplinary Authority as also the appellate authority on the quantum of punishment. If a delinquent on the charge of giving threats to a co-employer is punished by removing him from service, then this of punishment shocks the conscience of the Court. The dismissal of the petitioner by way of removal from service on such a charge is highly excessive and unreasonable.
9. For the aforesaid reasons this writ application is allowed in part and the punishment of removal from service of the petitioner is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to impose reasonable and suitable punishment for the charges levelled against the petitioner.