Jharkhand High Court
Purnman Thapa (Jap-I) vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 18 November, 2014
Equivalent citations: 2015 (1) AJR 722
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.1817 of 2011
Purnman Thapa ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate
For the State : J.C. to A.G.
---------
05/Dated: 18th November, 2014
Petitioner being aggrieved with the orders dated 22.5.2009,
14.12.2009and 29.6.2010 by which he had been terminated from service, has approached this Court.
It has been argued on behalf of petitioner that he had been appointed as Constable in the year 1988 and while he was posted in the security of Ex-Chief Minister Shri Madhu Koda he had been served with the memorandum of charge alleging therein, that without taking permission from the competent authority he came out from his battalion and also misbehaved with other constables who were deputed in the security duty of Resaldar Baba Mela, Doranda, Ranchi and also threatened them. After receiving memorandum of charge he had submitted his reply to inquiry officer, thereafter, one witness namely Tilak Bahadur Thapa had been examined by the inquiry officer who had stated that the petitioner had used abusive language with other constables in that mela at Ranchi, thereafter, the inquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges and submitted his report. The disciplinary authority without taking into consideration the fact that the irregularity committed by the petitioner is not so harsh, passed order impugned dated 22.5.2009 subsequently, the same had been confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority.
It has further been submitted that since the petitioner was working in the said department from the year 1988 and after rendering his services for 21 years the order of dismissal had been passed against him hence, the same is too harsh. It has further been submitted that for considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner this fact had also been drawn to the notice of 2 the competent authority but, the said authority had not considered this aspect of the matter and had rejected the plea of the petitioner on the ground of earlier order of dismissal and other orders of punishment passed against the petitioner.
It has further been submitted that since the petitioner had joined in the year 1988 and after rendering 21 years of his service he had been dismissed and also it had been ordered that no consequential benefits shall be given to the petitioner, absolutely harsh which not only affects him but also affects the family members who are depends upon him.
On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that the disciplinary authority had passed an order of dismissal considering the nature of allegation. It has further been submitted that on earlier occasions, several times punishment orders had been passed against him but, in spite of warnings he could not mend himself. It has further been submitted that keeping the petitioner in the Police Department will leads to deterioration in the discipline of the Force and, as such, the impugned order had been passed which needs no interference.
Heard the parties.
Petitioner had been appointed in the year 1988 and he had been punished with the order of dismissal on 22.5.2009. The main argument advanced on behalf of respondents is that if such type of person will be permitted to continue in Police Department the same will further leads to deterioration in the discipline of the Force as such, the order impugned had been passed. Contention raised on behalf of respondents is true but, the plea which has been taken by the petitioner that he had rendered services for 21 years as such, the matter needs reconsideration by the disciplinary authority which had not been considered. So far as, the earlier order of dismissal is concerned the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service as also regarding other punishment in which petitioner had already been punished will also not be considered for imposing punishment of dismissal thus, only allegation left to the respondents to impose punishment against the petitioner is allegation of using abusive language against the constable. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Ramkishan Vs. Union of India reported in 1995 (6) SCC 157 at Para 11 and 12 which reads as under :
311. "It is next to be seen whether imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the gravity of the imputation. When abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language. No strait-jacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. What was the nature of the abusive language used by the appellant was not stated."
12. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of charge imputed to the delinquent constable. Accordingly, we set aside the dismissal order. We hold that imposition of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would be an appropriate punishment. So, we direct the disciplinary authority to impose that punishment. However, since the appellant himself is responsible for the initiation of the proceedings, we find that he is not entitled to back wages; but, all other consequential benefits would be available to him."
The matter needs reconsideration because the facts of the instant case is similar to the case reported hereinabove.
In view of the facts stated above the matter is remanded back to the competent authority to take a decision with respect to quantum of punishment within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner soon thereafter.
Instant writ petition disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove.
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Nibha