Jharkhand High Court
Liladhar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 5 December, 2014
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
W. P. (S) No. 6781 of 2005 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) ... Liladhar Singh ... ...Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Bearing Area, Bokaro 3. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum- Enquiry Officer, head Office-II, Dhanbad... ...Respondents ... For the Petitioner : - Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents. :- Mr. Saket Upadhya, JC to AAG. ..... PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH ... By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who was a constable under the respondent- Police Department, was proceeded against under the charge sheet while he was posted at Barwadda Police Station in the district Dhanbad for having caused death of driver of a tanker bearing registration no. BHO-5830 by resorting to abuse and beating during course of patrolling on 15.09.2000. An FIR was registered by the Khalasi of the Tanker namely Tinku @ Md. Shamim bearing Barwadda P. S. Case No. 260 of 2000 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was placed under suspension vide district order no. 3100/2000. The order of punishment of withholding of two increments, which is equivalent to three black marks, was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad on 21.10.2002
, has been challenged by the petitioner apart from the Appellate Order dated 01.08.2003 passed by the respondent no. 2, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Bearing Area, Bokaro, which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
The ground for challenging as made are :- (I) the informant Tinku @ Md. Shamim during course of deposition in the departmental proceeding vide Annexure-3 did not support the charges even during cross examination. (II) that the criminal case ended in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 12.12.2001 passed in S. T. No. 306 of 2001 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad on the basis of no evidence. Despite the acquittal of the petitioner and the informant not supporting the charges, the enquiry officer held him guilty, whereafter the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment. It is submitted that if the charges in a departmental and criminal proceeding are based upon similar set of facts and the delinquent employee has been acquitted by the concerned Trial Court, the Disciplinary Authority should have acted on the basis of the order of acquittal and not imposed punishment on the employee. In the circumstances as aforesaid, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt, M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679. It is submitted that since charges in the departmental proceeding remained unsubstantiated, therefore, no punishment should have been imposed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the informant Tinku @ Md. Shamim in his self statement also during course of investigation supported the allegation that the petitioner being as a patrolling party had indulged in beating of the driver of the Tanker, which led to his death. It is submitted that cause of death is found to be due to nuerogenic shock in the post mortem report. No other factor could be attributed to the death of driver when he was driving the vehicle all along in a fine manner till then. The retraction of the statement by the informant by cooking up a different story cannot belittle the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner. It is submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner is based upon no evidence and more so when the prosecution witnesses themselves turned hostile. Therefore, no significance can be attached to such acquittal. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. T. Venkataramanappa reported in (1996) 6 SCC 455 and in the case of K. Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 8 SCC 73, have squarely held that even in case of acquittal, which is other than honourable, departmental proceedings may follow. Disciplinary proceeding if pending against the delinquent, the authority concerned are entitled to proceed with them independently uninfluenced by the judgment and in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of punishment, which need not be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court in the present writ petition. The proceedings were held in a proper manner and after observing the principle of natural justice.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on records. On perusal of the enquiry report and the evidences discussed therein, it appears that the incidence was reported by Khalasi of the Tanker by institution of an FIR and supported by his self statement. Infact the incidence resulted in a severe road jam in G.T. Road, which continued till the next morning and after great persuasion by the local police, jam could finally be removed. The allegation was that driver refused to pay a sum of Rs. 50/- to the patrolling party whereupon he was assaulted which resulted in his death. The proceedings appear to have been conducted after due compliance of the principles of natural justice. Upon consideration of the materials on record which are not only the statements of the informant made at the time of institution of FIR and later on also during investigation but also other witnessnes including the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad who was involved during the process of removal of jam, the charges were found to be established. From the reading of the judgment rendered by the Trial Court, it is apparent that prosecution witnesses turned hostile and in the circumstances, the Trial Court had to acquit the accused person including the petitioner on the basis of no evidence. Such an acquittal cannot be said to be an honourable acquittal either.
In the circumstances, considering the gravity of the charges that death to a person/driver of the tanker occurred on account of acts of the petitioner, a police personnel, punishment imposed upon him does not appear to be disproportionate to the established misconduct. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of punishment.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The Day of 5th December, 2014 Kamlesh/N.A.F.R.