Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 February, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1998 of 2023
Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged about 52 Years, son of Late Nand Kishore
Singh, resident of Vill.-Surith Bigha, Dosmha, P.O.+P.S.-
Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad (Bihar)- 824122 presently posted
as DSI (Incharge), Special Branch, Jharkhand, Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range,
Ranchi P.O & P.S.: Ranchi, Dist: Ranchi
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, West Singhbhum, P.O &
P.S: Chaibasa, Dist: West Singhbhum
4. The Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, P.O & P.S: Chaibasa Dist:
West Singhbhum ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
: Mr. Karan Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, AC to SC-I
---
11/07.02.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
" i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly respondent no. 4 to send to this Hon'ble Court all records appertaining to the Departmental Proceeding No. 08/2006 dated 31.03.2007 dated (Annexure-1) wherein although the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charge appended upon him but the respondent no. 4 without even granting opportunity to the petitioner to explain that the respondent no. 4 deferring with the finding given by the Enquiry Officer inflicted the punishment of one black mark upon the petitioner and inflicted punishment of non grant of increments for next six months which would not have the effect on his future service and after coming to know that in the service book of the petitioner, punishment incorporated was withholding of increment for six month which will effect throughout of his service career and inspite of Memo of appeal being filed vide Memo No. 44 dated 5.1.2023 (Annexure-2 series) was rejected as being time barred and the charge upon the petitioner was that he had not submitted the supplementary case diary after 15.9.2004.
ii. Thereafter, a humble prayer is being made before this Hon'ble court to quash/set aside the order passed in the Departmental Proceeding No. 08/2006 dated 31.03.07 (Annexure-1), wherein punishment of one black mark have been inflicted upon the petitioner i.e. increment stopped for the next six months without having any other effect on his further service career and also to quash the Memo No. 44 dated 5.1.2023 (Annexure 2 series) which has been rejected as time barred, and as being completely illegal, arbitrary and without following the natural justice.
iii. Further, a humble prayer is being made before this Hon'ble Court for a direction upon the respondent no. 4 to grant ACP benefits to the petitioner from the year 2006 which has been granted to the petitioner since the year 2016 and in this manner, he has been denied his ACP benefits for a period of 9 years without there being any fault from the 2 side of the petitioner, and this delay in grant of ACP benefit to the petitioner shall have adverse effect on his entire service career as well as after his retirement in the post retirement benefits and pensionary benefit for which he shall be entitled thereupon.
AND/OR Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioners are very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the face of the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the enquiry officer has given findings in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was not found guilty, but there is no mention of any communication to the petitioner before the disciplinary authority differed with the finding of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment. The learned counsel further submits that on the face of Annexure - 1, there is no mention of 2nd show-cause having been issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was imposed the punishment of withholding of increment for six months and such punishment was equivalent to one black mark. The learned counsel submits that although the petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings as is apparent from Annexure- 1, but the order of punishment was never communicated to the petitioner. He submits that the fact that the petitioner did not know about the order of punishment, has been mentioned in the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel further submits that subsequently, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority in November 2022 and the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel submits that the appellate authority ought to have given some opportunity to the petitioner to explain the delay, but no such opportunity was given and straightaway the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on technical ground.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the counter-affidavit, the records of the year 2006 have been shown to have been destroyed on account of termite and further in the counter-affidavit, the respondents have themselves stated that there was certain wrong entry in the service book of the petitioner regarding the punishment imposed and the same has been rectified vide order dated 06.06.2023. The learned counsel submits that considering the 3 fact that the punishment has serious impact upon the petitioner, the matter may be remitted to the appellate authority and the petitioner may explain his delay in filing the appeal. The learned counsel has also submitted that if there is any material with the respondents to show that the petitioner had any knowledge of the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner can certainly be confronted with the same.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner should have explained the delay in the memo of appeal. The delay was for a period of around 15 years from the date of the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the fact remains that the records relating to the year 2006 have been destroyed by termite as is apparent from the document and details contained in Annexure-C dated 03.02.2015 and relevant portion of the report signed by the concerned authorities on 03.02.2015 which has been annexed with the Annexure-C.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner had filed in the year 2022 against the order dated 31.03.2007 passed in the departmental proceedings no.08/2006 and the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the delay by giving the date of knowledge/date of communication of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. This court is of the considered view that the appellate authority ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the delay in filing the appeal before proceeding to dismiss the appeal on the point of limitation. The period of limitation will certainly commence from the date of communication/date of knowledge of the order impugned in appeal which is neither mentioned in the mem of appeal nor mentioned in the order passed by the appellate authority.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered view that for the ends of justice , still such an opportunity to explain the delay by disclosing the date of communication /date of knowledge / the source of obtaining the order passed by the disciplinary authority can be granted to the petitioner 4 and certainly upon such disclosure made by the petitioner it will be open to the respondents to consider such an explanation and/or refer to one or the other document(s) or one or the other event(s) in possession of the respondents which could controvert such claim of the petitioner so as to disentitle him condonation of delay and consequently disentitle him to challenge the order of the disciplinary proceedings on merits after a considerable length of time and in terms of the applicable rules.
9. In order to enable the petitioner to file a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in the light of the aforesaid observations and to enable the appellate authority to consider the same the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is hereby set- aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored to its original file and liberty is given to the petitioner to file a petition explain the delay in filing the appeal and seeking condonation of delay by filing appropriate application before the appellate authority within a period of 15 days from today. If such an application is filed, appropriate reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing be passed by the appellate authority on the petition seeking condonation of delay keeping in mind the aforesaid observations.
10. It is also observed that if the delay is condoned, then appropriate reasoned order be passed by the appellate authority on the merits of the case after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties based on whatever materials are produced /available with the parties under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case where certain records are said to have been destroyed by termites. The petitioner would also produce a copy of the entire records of the writ petition before the appellate authority.
11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj/Saurav