Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Rajesh Kumar vs Admin on 10 November, 2022
1. OA 348 of 2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 050/00348/2021
Date of CAV:- 31.08.2022
Date of Order:- 10th November, 2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR M.C. VERMA, MEMBER [J]
HON'BLE MR. S.K. SINHA, MEMBER [A]
Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sri Ved Parkash, resident of village-Safidon City,
P.S.-Safidon, District-Jind (Haryana). At present posted as D.I.G.,
Begusarai Range, Begusarai. (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
By Advocate :- Shri J.K. Karn.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The State of Bihar, through Chief Secretary, Bihar Patna-
800001.
3. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Government of
Bihar, Home Police (Department of Home), Bihar
Patna.800001.
4. The Additional Secretary to the Government, Government of
Bihar, Home Police (Department of Home), Bihar
Patna.800001.
5. The Pr. Secretary, Home Police, (Department of Home), Bihar
Patna, 800001.
6. The Secretary to the Government, Government of Bihar, Home
Police (Department of Home), Bihar Patna-800001.
By Advocate :- Shri Radhika Raman, l/c for respondent no.1.
Shri Harsh Singh with Shri K.K. Singh & Kumar
Shanu, l/c for respondents no. 2 to 6.
ORDER
M.C. Verma, M[J]
1. Being aggrieved by issuance of Charge Memorandum (Annexure A/1), dated 10.12.2020, for initiation of major disciplinary
2. OA 348 of 2021 proceeding under Rule-8 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules-1969 and also for non granting of promotion because of reason of Departmental proceeding, to the post of I.G. at the time when his junior were granted promotion instant OA has been preferred by the applicant, namely Rajesh Kumar, an IPS officer of 2003 batch. The prayer of the applicant, as has been made in the OA is as under :-
"A. Memorandum dated 10.12.2020, issued upon the order of Hon'ble Governor, Bihar and under the signature of Additional Secretary to Government of Bihar Department of Home (Home Police), as contained in Annexure-A/1, may be quashed and set aside whereby the applicant has been implicated in a wholly irregular Major Disciplinary Proceeding under Rule-8 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules-1969.
B. Sankalp dated 17June 2021, issued upon the orders of Hon'ble Governor, Bihar and under the signature of Secretary to Government of Bihar, Department of Home (Home Police), as contained in Annexure-A/3, may be quashed and set aside whereby the Written Statement of Defence submitted by applicant dated 11.01.2021, challenging absolutely erroneous Disciplinary Proceeding, has been rejected after more than 5 months but being uncomfortable, by a non speaking order.
C. The respondents forthwith may be directed to order the promotion of applicant to I.G. Police w.e.f. his batch-mate Sri Vikash Vaibhav, IPS and his juniors Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, IPS and Sri Suresh Prasad Choudhary IPS, Ordered vide Notification dated 29 December 2020 as contained in Annexure-A/4 with all consequential benefits.
D. Any other Relief/Reliefs, the applicant is entitled and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice."
3. OA 348 of 2021
2. Case of the applicant, as has been set out in the pleading of the OA, precisely is :-
(i) That applicant is a direct recruited IPS officer of 2003 batch presently posted as D.I.G. Police Begusarai Range, Bihar and the Charge Memorandum has been issued to him at the time when promotion of him to the post of I.G. was due. That the allegations leveled in the Charge Memorandum are that he has acted with malafide intent or in malafide manner while performing his quasi judicial function as Disciplinary/ Appellate/Revisionary Authority. That he, on 11/01/2021, gave reply of the charge memorandum explaining his position.
(ii) In pleading applicant elaborately has mentioned details of his reply and pleaded further that his reply has been rejected by a non speaking order (Annexure-A/3), Sankalp dated 17th June 2021 issued under the signature of Secretary to Government of Bihar, Department of Home (Home Police), upon the orders of Hon'ble Governor, Bihar.
(iii) That he, as DIG Central range Patna, have passed approximately 160 quasi- judicial orders as Appellate or as Disciplinary authority. That in his capacity as appellate or as disciplinary authority he followed complete uniformity & transparency and did not violate principle of natural justice or of law.
4. OA 348 of 2021
(iv) That he has brilliant record and because of this erroneous charge memorandum he was not given promotion to the post of Inspector General of police and his three batch mate, including two juniors, namely Vijay kumar Verma & Sri Suresh Chaudhry have been promoted to the post of Inspector General of police vide notification dated 29/12/2020.
(v) It has been contended in pleading that no allegations of corruption, corrupt motive, favoritism or lack of integrity is illustrated by the charge memorandum nor the allegations leveled in the Charge Memorandum can be treated as misconduct warranting initiation of Disciplinary proceedings because the same relates to his discretion as quasi judicial function exercised by him while he has acted as Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority in Departmental Proceeding. That revisionary authority of him while reviewing the order passed by him as an appellate authority has also not observed any misconduct. That there can be difference of opinion between disciplinary/ appellate/ revisionary authority according to their analysis of various factors that did appear before them but the same alone cannot be ground for departmental action when the element of guilty mind is not there.
5. OA 348 of 2021
3. After issuance of notice WS has been filed by respondent nos. 2 to 6. No WS has been filed by respondent-1. Disputing the relief claimed in the OA and stating about the duties of Deputy Inspector General under Rule 9(b) of Bihar Police Manual, 1978 and referring Rule 826 of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978, contesting respondent have pleaded that some cases were decided by the applicant as Disciplinary Authority and some others as Appellate Authority. That as Disciplinary Authority or being Appellate Authority his act was against the established principles of law and Rules made in Bihar Police Manual, 1978 and he without any legal basis modified the punishment awarded to some officers found guilty in disciplinary proceedings by the Conducting Officers. That the Police Headquarters, under Rule 853A of Bihar Police Manual, 1978, reviewed the cases which were modified by the applicant and recommended initiation of departmental proceeding against him. That the Inspector General of Police (Hqr.) Bihar Patna, vide letter dated 30.09.2020, requested Home Department (Police Branch) Bihar, Patna to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the applicant for his administrative incompetency, negligence towards duty and providing shelter to the officers who were incompetent in crime control.
3.1. Further pleadings of respondents is that the matter of the applicant was examined at the Government level and it was decided to issue memorandum for initiation of departmental proceeding against the applicant, under Rule 8 of the All India Service (Disciplinary &
6. OA 348 of 2021 Appeal) Rules 1969, and accordingly vide memo dated 10.12.2020 applicant was directed to submit a reply in terms of the provision contained in Rule 8(5) of the All India Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules 1969. That the reply, submitted by applicant vide letter dated 11.02.2021 & 25.01.2021, was not found satisfactory and hence Government issued Resolution No. 3866 dated 17.06.2021 for conducting departmental proceeding under Rule 8 of 1969 Rules against the applicant. That the Home Department (Police Branch), vide Resolution No. 4587 dated 09.07.2021, has appointed Smt. Beena Kumari (IPS), S.P. (Weaker Section), C.I.D., Bihar, Patna as Presenting Officer in the departmental proceeding. It has also been pleaded that Chief Enquiry Commissioner, Bihar vide letter dated 01.07.2021 asked the Home Department to send its opinion on the explanation submitted by the applicant and Home Department found not satisfactory the written reply sent by applicant and sent its opinion to Chief Enquiry Commissioner, Bihar Patna vide letter dated 30.07.2021.
3.2. With respect to the claim of the applicant for granting promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police is concerned, it is pleaded by respondents that a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion on the post of Inspector General of Police for the year 2021 was held on 16.12.2020 for the 2003 batch of I.P.S. Officers. The recommendation regarding the promotion of the applicant, vide Momo dated 10.12.2020 has been kept in sealed envelope due to the departmental proceeding initiated.
7. OA 348 of 2021
4. Learned counsel Mr. Jayant Kr. Karn Advocate, appearing for the applicant urged that applicant is an IPS officer and he as DIG Central range Patna have passed approximately 160 quasi-
judicial orders as appellate or as disciplinary authority and that Respondent Department being displeased now has issued Charge Memorandum to the applicant alleging that he acting as Disciplinary Authority/ Appellate Authority did not act as per norms and that orders passed by him have been reversed by the Higher Authority.
That applicant gave reply of the charge memorandum explaining his position that he sincerely dealt with the Departmental Proceeding and that if some of his orders have not found favor of the Higher Authority that alone cannot be a ground for issuance of charge memorandum until unless there are allegation of dishonesty or undue favor and that in charge memorandum there is no such allegations of dishonesty or undue favor etc. He also argued that applicant is at the verge of promotion and deliberately, with ulterior motive time has been chosen to deprive the applicant of his due promotion of I.G.
5. Learned Counsel Shri Harash Singh Advocate appearing for respondent's no. 2 to 6 disputed the maintainability of the O.A. submitting that the O.A. is premature, departmental enquiry has been set up and without conclusion of departmental proceeding it would not be justified to entertain the O.A. He requests to dismiss the OA.
However, he also requested for two weeks time to enable the respondents to reconsider, stating that he has been given impression
8. OA 348 of 2021 that State Authority wants to reconsider about this charge memorandum.
6. Recording said request of Mr Harash Singh in proceeding order (dated 04/4/2022) four weeks time was given. Thereafter, on 27/5/2022, Mr Harash Singh placed on record a letter of Bihar Government Department of Home (Aarakshi Sakha), no. 3948 and dated 19/4/22 addressed to him. The letter is in Hindi and its text, in vernacular is as under :-
"i= la[;k&1@;k&06@2021 x`0vk0 3948 -
fcgkj ljdkj
x`g foHkkx
¼vkj{kh 'kk[kk½
izs"kd]
ds0 lsafFky dqekj] Hkk0iz0ls0
ljdkj ds lfpoA
lsok esa]
Jh g"kZ flag] vf/koDrk
dsUnzh; iz'kklfud U;k;kf/kdj.k
iVuk ihB] iVukA
irk&214@,0] ,l0ds0iqjh
iVuk&800001] eks0 9661911004
bZ&esy%&[email protected]
iVuk] fnukad 19 vizSy] 2022
fo"k; %& vks0,0 la0 348@2021 jkts'k dqekj cuke Hkkjr la?k ,oa vU; ds laca/k
esaA
izlax %& vkidk bZ&esy fnukad 02-04-2022A
egk'k;]
funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k;d izklafxd i= ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd ekuuh; dsUnzh; iz'kklfud U;k;kf/kd.k esa Jh jkts'k dqekj ds ekeys esa fnukad 01-04- 2022 dks vafre lquokbZ ds nkSjku ekuuh; U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk izFke n`"V;k ;g bafxr fd;k x;k fd oknh ds fo:) lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dks fujLr fd;k tk ldrk gSA lquokbZ dks fnukad 04-04-2022 rd ds fy, LFkfxr djrs gq, ljdkjh vf/koDrk ls bl fcUnq ij lwpuk dh vis{kk dh x;h gS fd jkT; ljdkj oknh ds fo:) orZeku vkjksi ,oa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dks D;k okil ysxh] bl Lora=rk ds lkFk fd oknh ds fo:) u;s fljs ls mi;qDr vkjksi xfBr djrs gq, foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh pyk;s D;ksfa d iz'uxr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa dksbZ dnkpkj fufgr ugha gSA 2- mYys[kuh; gS fd Jh jkts'k dqekj ds fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vf[ky Hkkjrh; lsok,¡ ¼vuq'kklu ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 1969 ds fu;e 8 ds varxZr lapkfyr dh x;h gSA blds fufer vkjksi i= fuxZr gSA Jh dqekj ds fo:) fuxZr vkjksi i= ls Li"V gS fd Jh dqekj }kjk vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkj ,oa vihyh; izkf/kdkj ds :i esa
9. OA 348 of 2021 lansgkLin dk;Z fd;s x;s gSaA muij iqfyl ds lcls egRoiw.kZ dk;Z vijk/k fu;qa=.k esa v{ke inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks izJ; nsus rFkk vius drZO;kas esa vdq'ky inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks izksUufr fnykus esa lg;ksxh jgs gSaAxfBr vkjksiksa ds fy, muls izkIr cpko&c;ku leh{kksijkar larks"kizn ugha ik;s tkus ds dkj.k mls vLohÑr dj fn;k x;k vkSj mDr vkjksiksa dh tk¡p gsrq lapkyu inkf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr dh x;hA 3- Jh jkts'k dqekj ds fo:) lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk i;kZIr vk/kkj gS vkSj muds fo:) xfBr vkjksiksa esa vf[ky Hkkjrh; lsok,¡ ¼vkpj.k½ f;ekoyh] 1968 ds laxr fu;eksa dk mYya?ku fufgr gSaA bl ekeys esa foHkkx dh vksj ls vkjksi i= fuxZr fd, tkus dk foLr`r vk/kkj ,oa fof/kd izko/kkuksa dk mYys[k djrs gq, ekuuh; U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izfr'kiFk i= nk;j fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vkjksi i= ,oa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dks okil fy;k tkuk ;qDr;qDr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA 4- vr% vuqjks/k gS fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk miyC/k dj;s x;s rF;ksa dks iwjh etcwrh ds lkFk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k j[kk tk;A fo'oklHkktu gŒ@& ljdkj ds lfpo"
7. In said backdrop matter was reheard in detail, for final disposal. Learned counsel for applicant while pressing the OA reiterated his submissions quoted above, in paragraph 4, and argued further that imputations are vague, no financial angle involved and even if some irregularities or mistakes are there in order passed by the applicant as Disciplinary or as Appellate Authority the same cannot be said to fall in the ambit of misconduct and stating that respondent authority has set up departmental enquiry and has appointed the Inquiry Officer, vide order dated 16.06.2021, he urged that if this practice of issuing charge memorandum, without cogent reason relating to order passed by a person in capacity of quasi-judicial authority & setting set up of departmental enquiry is encouraged that would defeat the very basic feature of our Constitution. He emphasized that the Charge Memorandum & Article of Charges are vague and the imputations are not specific. He referred the Charge Memorandum & Article of Charges and placed reliance on decisions
10. OA 348 of 2021 titled: (i) Abhay Jain versus The High of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 Live Law [SC] 284; (ii) Secretary, M/o Defence & Ors.
Vs. Parbhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565; and (iii) G. Santosh Kumar Versus State of Kerla 2021(4) KLT 541.
8. Learned Counsel Mr. Radhika Raman, appearing for respondent no.1 urged that respondent no.1 is a formal party and he would adopt the submissions to be advanced by Mr. Harash Singh Advocate who is appearing for respondent's no. 2 to 6. Mr Harash Singh arguing that judgment relied upon by the applicant is not applicable in this case, has urged that without conclusion of departmental proceeding it would not be justified to entertain this OA and made request to dismiss the OA. During argument attention of Mr. Harash was invited to Memorandum of charges and he was requested to see whether specific imputation with details of that case in which undue favor has been alleged to be done by the applicant is there in this memorandum and he submits that he is unable to specify the details of cases in which favor was done by the applicant nor it is disclosed by the Charge memorandum but the details of those cases is deducible from list of documents & witnesses attached with charge memorandum and it cannot be said that applicant was not aware, he has in his reply has answered about those cases. He concluded his submission stating that serious allegations against the applicant are there, like putting halt/suppress certain act of offences, failure in crime control and exonerating the delinquent official, acting
11. OA 348 of 2021 as Disciplinary Authority or as Appellate Authority, on external or improbable ground .
9. Considered the submissions advanced and perused the record. The issue that has erupted is if the charge memorandum does not have specific imputation and details, whether departmental proceeding can proceed based upon such memorandum of charge alleging incompetency, negligence towards duty and providing shelter to the officers who were incompetent in crime control?
10. It is settled legal proposition that the only thing in a decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and to isolate from it the ratio decendi. As far Parbhash Chandra Mirdha's case [cited supra], relied upon by applicant, relates, obviously issue evolved in this case was different. In this case the issue erupted was of competency of the Authority issuing charge sheet and hence is clearly distinguishable.
11. In G. Santosh Kumar's case[ cited supra] and relied upon by applicant the issue before Hon'ble High Court of Kerla, in petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C., was whether refund of excess tax amount to company by Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) amount to criminal misconduct and Hon'ble High Court holding that Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) while passing the assessment order under Kerla Value Added Tax Act 2003 had discharged function as a "Judge" and is entitled to protection under Section 3(1) of the Judges Protection Act, 1985;and observing so Hon'ble High Court held that
12. OA 348 of 2021 the prosecution (Criminal) against the petitioner ,which is based on Assessment Orders passed by him, is not maintainable.
12. In Abhay Jain case [cited supra] and relied upon by applicant, an direct recruits ADJ of July 2013, was discharged from service in year 2016. He while was posted as Sessions Judge Anti-
Corruption did grant a bail and the genesis of the action of discharge of him from service was grant of this Bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court intervened observing that the charges are vague and that every judicial officers is likely to commit mistake of some kind or other in passing orders in the initial stage of his service, however, if the order are passed without their being any corrupt motive, the same should be overlooked by the High Court. That negligence alone cannot be treated as misconduct. Recently Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in its decision dated 05/07/22, delivered in case titled Satyender Kumar Singh versus UOI & Ors, passed in CWJC no. 11622 of 2014 has referred said case of Abhay Jain and noted down that "Apex Court interfered in departmental inquiry proceedings if the charges are vague in the case of Abhay Jain vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Anr. Reported in 2022 SCC Online 319".
13. Regarding vagueness of Charge Memo, Hon'ble High Court also has referred paragraph 16 of case reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515, which verbatim is as under:--
"Further, in respect of vagueness of the charge Hon'ble Apex Court has considered in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P.Education Society & Ors. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515. The relevant paragraph 16 reads as under:-
13. OA 348 of 2021 "16. Where the charge-sheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the charge-sheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated.
Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge- sheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of allegations are not served with the charge- sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The evidence adduced should not be perfunctory; even if the delinquent does not take the defence of, or make a protest that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. What is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. (Vide State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, U.P. SRTC v. Ram Chandra Yadav, Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar and Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshertriya Gramin Bank.)"
14. While setting aside Order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner before it, in Satyender Kumar Singh's case, Hon'ble High Court did find & laid down as herein below :-
"Statement of imputation of misconduct in support of Article of Charge vide Annexure 2 to the Charge Memo does not reveal the title departmental rules and procedures and which rule and which procedure, which have not been taken note of by the etitioner while processing the bills in Gardanibagh Post office Building and Sub Postmaster Quarter No. 5, Road No. 8, Gardanibagh. In other words, Article of charge is not supported by statement of imputation also. In fact, the petitioner had demanded five documents and he has been provided few documents except which are the departmental rules and procedures which is the foundation for framing Article of charge against the
14. OA 348 of 2021 petitioner. The aforesaid issue has not been apprised by the inquiring authority, Disciplinary authority, Appellate authority and Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case that the Charge Memo itself is very vague to the extent that petitioner did not follow the laid down departmental rules and procedures and process the bill as stated in the Article of charge. In other words, very vague charges have been framed without stating which of the rule of the Title of the departmental rules and procedures have been violated. In fact, no departmental rules and procedures have been stated in the Article of charge and so also in the statement of imputation. Therefore, findings of the inquiring officer and its confirmation by the disciplinary and appellate authority and Tribunal are not in consonance with the principle of natural justice."
15. It deems fit & proper at this stage, in unique facts and circumstances of the case in hand, to reproduce the charge memorandum and reply of charge memorandum by the applicant. The Charge Memorandum is in abstruse Hindi , its transcript version in English has been supplied by counsel of applicant and counsel for both set of respondents, upon enquiry have stated at Bar that they are having no complaint about correctness of translation. Translated transcription of Memorandum of Charges in English, as has been supplied by learned counsel for applicant ,verbatim, is as under:-
"Government of Bihar Home Department (Police Branch) Memorandum Patna , Dated December, 2020 Memorandum No. 1/M02-60-18/2020 Home. Police....... /
15. OA 348 of 2021 Shri Rajesh Kumar, I.P.S. (2003). The then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna Presently Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range,Begusarai during his posting period from 01.05.2017 to 14.08.2019 in certain Departmental Proceedings after being found Charges proved by the Conducting Officers and appropriate punishments awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, Mr. Kumar in his capacity of Appellate Authority, without considering the facts and evidences , acquitted the delinquents on external grounds like "probable promotion in future", as a result of which the disqualified officer was also promoted. Similarly, in the departmental proceedings conducted against the inspectors, despite being found guilty by the conducting officer, Mr. Kumar acquitted them in capacity of Disciplinary Authority. Besides, in some of the Departmental Proceedings where there were procedural error in conduction of Disciplinary Inquiry , instead of taking remedial action the same were closed in the same form. Serious allegations were there against the delinquent officials like putting halt / suppress certain act of offences , reducing the seriousness of offence , failure in crime control and allowing benefits of Section -167(2) to the accused by delinquent officials . The disregard for the duties against the delinquents were not considered as bad by Mr. Kumar . The duties of Deputy Inspector General of Police as prescribed for Shri Kumar in Bihar Police Handbook, especially crime control led failure to maintain discipline and efficiency among subordinate Police force. Thus, the work done by Mr. Kumar as disciplinary authority and supervisory officer has been doubtful. Shri Kumar has been instrumental in providing shelter to incompetent officials in crime control and allowing promotion of unskilled officers in their duties. The above act of Mr. Kumar is indicative of his arbitrariness, indiscipline, administrative incompetence, apathy towards duty and lack of truthfulness and is against the dignity of the Senior Police Officer, which is against All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968 Rule - 3(1), 3(1A) (i), 3 (1A) (iii), . 3 (1A)(iv), 3 (2), 3 ( 2B ) (viii). 3(2B)(x) and 3(3)(i) .
2. Sri Rajesh Kumar , I.P.S.(2003) , Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range , Begusarai , has been decided to departmentally proceeded with for his said serious allegations under All India Services ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 by the Disciplinary Authority .
16. OA 348 of 2021 The "Articles of Charge" and "Statement of Imputations of Misbehavior and Misconduct" prepared for conducting departmental proceedings against Mr. Kumar are enclosed with evidence/witness table.
3. Shri Rajesh Kumar, IPS (2003), Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range , Begusarai is hereby given an opportunity under Rule 8(5) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 to defend himself. If he wish to make his written representation, submit it to this Department within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this Memorandum. Along with this, also inform the department whether he want to present his defense in this proceedings or not. The decision of Enquiry would be taken only to those allegations which will not be accepted in the defense representation .
4. If Mr. Rajesh Kumar, IPS (2003), Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range , Begusarai, does not submit his written defense statement/representation within the stipulated period mentioned in paragraph-3 above, then further action will be taken against him as per rules.
5. Shri Rajesh Kumar, IPS (2003) will accept this Memorandum and a copy of the "Articles of Charge" and "Statement of Imputations of Misbehavior and Misconduct"
attached herewith and all evidence/witness table.
By order of the Governor of Bihar Sd /-10.12.2020 (Girish Mohan Thakur) Under Secretary to Government"
16. The Text of Articles of Charges, annexed with Charge Memorandum is as follows:-
"Government of Bihar Home Department ( Police Branch) The Articles of Charges
1. Name, designation and category of the officer :- Shri Rajesh Kumar, IPS (2003). The then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Patna Presently Deputy Inspector General of Police. Begusarai Range, Begusarai.
17. OA 348 of 2021
2. Details of Charges :- Against Shri Rajesh Kumar, IPS (2003) , while employed as Deputy Inspector General, Central Range, Patna during his posting period from 01.05.2017 to 14.08.2019 committed irregularities in certain departmental proceedings against the original orders of Departmental Proceedings in the capacity of Appellate Authority and Inquiry report of the then Inspector General of Police was received vide Memo 521 dated 09.02.2019. Through the said report, the orders passed by Mr. Kumar as appellate authority against the orders issued in certain departmental proceedings are not proportionate to the charge leveled against the delinquents, in the Inspector General of Police, Patna Zone, Patna, Under Police Manual Rule 853(A) A request was made to the Bihar Police Headquarters for review under (a)(K). Similarly, in the departmental proceedings conducted against the police inspectors, despite being found guilty by the Conducting officer, the order passed by Mr. Kumar as the original disciplinary authority was not proportionate to the charge leveled against the delinquents and as such by the Inspector General of Police, Patna Range, Patna a request was made to Police Headquarter . Under Bihar Police Manual Rule 853 (a) (k), request was made to the Police Headquarters for review through letter no. 1310/S.A. dated 25.04.2019.
1. Bihar Police Headquarter, after review found that in certain departmental proceedings, after being found charges proved by the Conducting officers, despite being given appropriate punishment by the original disciplinary authority, without reviewing the facts and evidence by Mr. Kumar himself as the appellate authority, Orders of exoneration were passed on external grounds like "probable promotion in future". The result of which was that these serious lapses of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who played an active role in including the ineligible officers, who were also promoted, in the category of qualified officers for promotion, cannot be ignored, because of the fault in the appeal by him. Being freed was the only reason, due to which the names of such office bearers could be included in the promotion board. The said act of Mr. Kumar is indicative of his arbitrariness, indiscipline, administrative incompetence, indifference to duty and lack of truthfulness and is against the dignity of the senior police officer, which is against Rule 3(1) of the All India Services
18. OA 348 of 2021 (Conduct) Rules, 1968. 3 (1A) (i). 3(1A) (iii). 3 (1A) (iv). 3 (2) 3 (2B) (viii). of 3 ( 2B ) (x) and 3 ( 3 ) (i).
2. In the departmental proceedings conducted against the police inspectors, despite being found guilty by the conducting officer, Mr. Kumar acquitted him as a disciplinary authority. Apart from this, even though there were procedural defects in the conduct of some departmental proceedings, they were filed in the same format without taking corrective action on them. In a review done at the Bihar Police Headquarters level of the original the police inspectors, it was found that in the departmental proceedings, the Conducting officer intended to be found guilty for the charges framed against the delinquents , but as disciplinary authority by Mr. Kumar. A mere "Warning for Future" order was passed and no reasonable reason was given to disagree with the views of the Conducting Officers. There were procedural lapses in some of the proceedings, which were ignored by Mr. Kumar, instead of corrective steps. The above act of Mr. Kumar shows his arbitrariness, indiscipline, administrative incompetence, indifference to duty and lack of truthfulness and is against the dignity of the senior police officer, which is infringement of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. 3 (1). 3 (1A) (i). 3 (1A) (iii). 3 (1A) (iv). 3 (2). 3 (2B) (viii), 3 (2B ) (x) and 3(3)(i).
3. In the departmental proceedings conducted against the police inspectors, by the conducting officer the charges were found substantiated and in the case of police sub-inspectors and others, the disciplinary authority, agreeing with the opinion of the conducting officer, passed appropriate punishment, but all the serious allegations against delinquents were considered by Mr. Kumar as minor mistake and exonerated with "Warning for Future". The allegations made in the departmental proceedings conducted against the delinquents were serious in nature but the inability to differentiate between serious charges and minor errors was displayed by Mr. Kumar. The charges constituted against the delinquents like suppression, mitigation, failure to control the crime and giving the benefit of section 167(2) of CrPC to the accused were not considered as negligence by Mr. Kumar. The duties of Deputy Inspector General of Police by Shri Kumar as prescribed in Bihar Police Handbook, especially crime control and the subordinate force have failed to maintain discipline and efficiency. Thus the work done by Mr. Kumar
19. OA 348 of 2021 as a Disciplinary Authority and Supervisory Officer is doubtful. Shri Kumar has been instrumental in providing shelter to incompetent officials in crime control and promotion of unskilled officers in their duties. The said act of Mr. Kumar is indicative of his arbitrariness, indiscipline, administrative incompetence, indifference to duty and lack of truthfulness, which is in violation with Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. 3 (1A) (i). 3 (1A) (3), 3(1A) (iv). 3(2). 3(2B)(viii), 3(2B)(x) and 3(3)(i).
Sd /-10.12.2020 (Girish Mohan Thakur) Under Secretary to Government Home Department (Police Branch ) "
17. Reply of Charge Memorandum by applicant, verbatim is under:-
"Office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range, Begusarai. From:
Rajesh Kumar, IPS.
DIG, Begusarai Range.
Begusarai.
To, Shri Girish Mohan Thakur, The Under Secretary to the Government, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Ref.: Your Memo No. 1/M2-60-18/2020 Home Police 8450 dated 10.12.2020.
Subject: Submission of written statement. Sir, The above memo was handed over to me by a special messenger on 14.12.20. I am submitting a written statement within the required time limit with regards to the aforesaid memo. 8450 dated 10.12.2020 Under Rule-8(5) of All India Services (discipline and appeal) Rules 1969 informing contemplation of enquiry and granting me opportunity to file written statement within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid letter. During my tenure as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna period being 01.05.2017 to 14.08.2019 I have passed many quasi-judicial orders as appellate and disciplinary authority out of which orders
20. OA 348 of 2021 passed in 4 appeals and 7 proceedings have been questioned.
In response to the aforesaid memo the undersigned submits as under:
1. The orders passed by me were reviewed by the Revisional Authority as per prescribed norms and necessary orders have been passed by the Revisional Authority which was found to be appropriate in his consideration.
2. In discharge of my official duties as quasi-judicial Authority, I followed complete uniformity and transparency and passed necessary quasi-judicial orders without committing error of law or Rules of Natural Justice.
Discretion in imposition of punishment in capacity of disciplinary or Appellate Authority depends on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent held, previous penalty, willful disobedience etc. While deciding the appeal these factors were taken into consideration.
3. In the Judicial and Quasi-judicial matters there can be difference of opinions between disciplinary / appellate / revisional authorities and they may pass orders according to their analysis of various facts and factors that appeared before them. This cannot be made grounds for action against a quasi- judicial authority as has been stated by the Police Headquarters memo 55/350203 /L1 dated 25.01.2018 in which it has been clearly said appellate authority can review/ increase/ exonerate the punishment.
4. In these proceedings the element of guilty mind and intention of the delinquent employee was found missing and prima facie the evidence in support of proved and partly proved charges were not held to be based on sound evidence capable of proving the charges objectively and beyond reasonable doubt following the principle of natural justice.
5. In all the aforesaid appeals and proceeding of delinquents there was no allegation of corruption, favoritism or lack of integrity in the complaint/charges and neither any corrupt motive had been attributed to the delinquent officers in the proceedings.
6. The revisional authority having regard to quasi-judicial authority has not commented anything against the disciplinary authority or appellate authority with regards to orders passed by me while reviewing the orders under Rule- 853(a) of the Bihar Police Manual.
21. OA 348 of 2021
7. In capacity of Appellate Authority out of many appeals, the order passed in the following 4 appeals have been questioned in above aforesaid memo. The details of the matters and the factors have been given below:
(i) Departmental Proceeding No. 61/2017 of S.I., Vinod Kumar-
a) The said delinquent employee was subjected to disciplinary proceeding vide charge memo dated 11.02.2017 mainly on the charges of his inability in curbing the offence of vehicle thefts under Rupaspur Police Station. The ASP, Phulwari was made the Enquiry Officer of the matter. The delinquent employee filed his explanation on 17.05.2017 before the Enquiry Officer on 17.05.2017 denying the charges of being insensitive and unprofessional. In his reply he has further stated that no explanation was sought and straight way the disciplinary proceeding was initiated, several new residential colonies and apartments have come up within the area of Rupaspur P.S where no arrangement for parking the vehicles have been made and the vehicles are parked unattended on road side outside the house/apartments. He submitted the details of prompt action taken in cases of vehicle theft and prompt action taken in other cases resulting into recovery of stolen goods and arrest of accused persons and requested to accept his explanation.
Admittedly the charged employee did not cross examine the witnesses and the Enquiry Officer however found the charges of not curbing the incident of vehicle theft to be true and submitted his report on 01.08.2017. The City S.P. West Patna cum Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of two black marks, the effect of the same was withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect vide order under Memo No. 2408 dated 23.08.2017.
b) Against the order of punishment, the delinquent employee filed his appeal for my consideration in capacity of Appellate Authority giving details of cases successfully handled by him and the efforts made by him for maintaining law and order within his local jurisdiction. He further gave references of cases wherein stolen goods were recovered and about rewards given to him by Sr. Officials. Giving the details of the circumstances and achievement he had in his service tenure, he had made the prayer to accept the appeal and to set aside the disproportionate punishment order passed by Disciplinary Authority keeping into account his due promotion.
22. OA 348 of 2021
c) The undersigned having considered the gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duty assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that he held and the reward given to him by the Sr. Police Officers and recovery of articles made in several cases of theft modified the order of punishment to the punishment of "warning" vide order dated 06.07.2018.
d) The order passed by the undersigned was however reviewed under Police Manual Rule 853 (a) and the Revisional Authority vide his order under Memo No. 77 dated 04.03.2020 set aside the order passed by me and upheld the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.
(ii) Departmental Proceeding No. 19/2016 of S.I. Rajesh Kumar
a) This delinquent employee was charged for not submitting special report and details of pending cases of Rupaspur P.S. of the year 2014 and 2015 and for being negligent and disobedient he was charged on 18.01.2016 and the S.D.P.O., Law and Order was appointed as enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of charges and submitted his report dated 30.10.2017 and based on findings of Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of withholding of one annual increment which is equivalent to two black marks.
b) The said delinquent employee filed his appeal on 06.07.2018 against the order of punishment stating inter- alia that he had submitted the charge report of the said case mentioning the charge sheet number and date on which it was submitted. The notice said to have been given on 24 occasions was denied, however one notice was admittedly received by him and as such he stated to have not got the opportunity to defend himself and the order of punishment was passed unilaterally on incorrect facts.
c) Having considered the entire records including charge memo, enquiry report, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appeal of the delinquent employee the order of punishment in my considered opinion was not found to be sustainable and accordingly after due consideration the punishment withholding of increment was reduced to "warning" by order dated 10.07.2018. The order thus passed by me was a well-considered order.
23. OA 348 of 2021
d) The order passed by the undersigned was reviewed at the level of Director General of Police Under Rule-853(a) of Bihar Police Manual and it was set aside and the order of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld vide order dated 17.02.2020. The order passed by Director General of Police was subsequently duplicated by Inspector General of Police, Patna Range in his order dated 05.03.2020 without commenting anything adverse against order passed by me.
(iii)Departmental Proceeding No. 63/2017 of S.I., Akhilesh Kumar
a) A charge sheet dated 02.03.2017 was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna disclosing the charge of not lodging any F.I.R. or entering the case in Case Diary of a truck which met with an accident with a standing tree on 30.10.2016, which was reported by the Choukidar and subsequent necessary action in the matter. The City S.P. (West), Patna recommended for action and in the light of recommendation the direction of initiation of departmental proceeding was issued by the Senior S.P. Patna on 02.03.2017 and Deputy S.P., Secretariat, security was appointed as conducting officer.
b) The said delinquent employee filed his explanation on 15.06.2018 stating inter-alia that he had made entry in case diary on 30.10.2016 itself and made all endeavors to find out the owner of the vehicle. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 15.06.2018 holding charges to be partly proved.
c) The disciplinary authority (S.S.P., Patna) however differing with the finding of enquiry officer awarded punishment of withholding of one increment equivalent to two black marks and it was further ordered that nothing except subsistence allowance shall be paid to the delinquent employee vide order dated 17.07.2018.
d) Against the order of punishment an appeal was preferred before the undersigned and upon consideration of entire record including the explanation and the report of the Enquiry Officer whereby the charges were partly proved, the order of punishment was reduced to warning by my appellate order dated 18.07.2018.
e) The matter was again examined by the Director General of Police under Rule-353(a) of the Bihar Police Manual and upon consideration the appellate order passed by me
24. OA 348 of 2021 was set aside and the order of disciplinary authority was upheld vide order dated 05.02.2020 and the similar order has been passed by the Inspector General of Police, Patna range on 05.03.2020 without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.
(iv) Departmental Proceeding No. 246/2018 of S.I., Brajbhushan Mishra
a) This delinquent employee was saddled with a charge dated 19.05.2018 of not submitting charge sheet in time in Maner P.S. Case No.-196/2013 and its benefit was taken by the accused under Section-167(2) of the Cr.P.C. by getting bail from the Court of Law.
b) The charges levelled against the delinquent employee was proved by the conducting officer upon which the order of punishment of withholding of one annual increment was issued by the disciplinary authority on 28.07.2018.
c) Against the order of punishment an appeal was preferred before the undersigned stating inter-alia that all the accused persons surrendered in the court due to prompt action taken by him. The charge sheet was prepared in time but due to his other engagement he assigned the duty of submission of charge sheet to his subordinate employee who could not submit the same due to ignorance. Explaining the reasons, he prayed for setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority so that he is not deprived of his due promotion.
d) Having considered the entire records including charge memo, report of enquiry officer, order of punishment and the averments made in appeal the punishment of "warning" was considered to be appropriate and accordingly the punishment was reduced to "warning".
e) My order was again reviewed on 05.02.2020 at the level of Director General of Police under Rule-853(a) of the Bihar Police Manual and upon consideration the original order of disciplinary authority was upheld and Zonal I.G., Patna passed the consequential order dated 06.03.2020 in consonance with the order passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.
8. In capacity of Disciplinary Authority out of many proceedings, orders passed in the following 7 proceedings have been questioned in above aforesaid memo. The details of the matters and the factors have been given below:
25. OA 348 of 2021
(i) Nalanda District Departmental Proceeding No. 18/2016 of Inspector Rajesh Ranjan The delinquent Police Sub-Inspector Rajesh Ranjan who at the relevant time was posted as Station House Officer, Laheri Police Station was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and a charge memo dated 12.02.2016 was served upon him for instituting a case of snatching of a bag under Section 379 of the IPC instead of 392 in an incident reported by a retired army personnel who was returning from the bank after withdrawing a sum of 50000/- from the bank which he had kept in the said bag. He was charged of not applying appropriate section for offence.
The Enquiry Officer enquired into the matter and submitted his report on 10.05.2018 holding that he should have applied 392 IPC but a weaker section of 379 IPC was applied and hence he was found to be guilty of the charges. The delinquent employee filed his representation on 11.05.2018 stating inter alia that the case in which he was charged of applying 379 of the IPC was in fact found to be true by the supervising Authority under the same Section 379 and he had performed good services resulting into arrest of a veteran criminal Vishal Yadav of Katihar for which he was also awarded. In his service tenure he was given several letter of appreciation and thus prayer was made from exoneration from charges.
Having considered the entire record including the enquiry report and the defense taken by the delinquent employee the punishment of warning was awarded to the said delinquent employee.
(ii) Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 152/2013 of Inspector MritunjayPrasad Singh The aforesaid delinquent employee who at the relevant time was Station House Officer, Sultanganj was charged of not keeping the station diary up to date. On 27.06.2013 the inspection of the Police Station was conducted and it was found that the entry in the diary was not made after 24.06.2013 and he was found missing and his mobile was switched off. For these charges of negligence and in discipline the charge memo dated 02.05.2013 was issued against the delinquent employee. The said delinquent employee submitted his explanation before the Enquiry Officer on 19.08.2014 stating inter alia that he was on night duty on the said date i.e. 27.06.2013 and further stated that the person who use to maintain station diary was on leave and another ASI namely Madan
26. OA 348 of 2021 Mohan Jha was assigned the duty of entry of station diary. There was no other deficiency found in the inspection. The Enquiry Officer however found the charges of not maintaining station diary and keeping the mobile phone switched off to be true.
The matter came for my consideration and having regard to the circumstances and after perusal of the charge sheet, the exhibits, the witnesses and the enquiry report and the explanation given by the delinquent employee and the various cases successfully handled by the delinquent employee the order of warning was found to be appropriate in given situation and accordingly the delinquent employee was warned.
The revisional authority however reviewed the matter and agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer awarded the punishment of withholding of increment for six months which is equivalent to the punishment of one black mark and without commenting anything on my order modified the order passed by me vide his order dated 13.07.2020.
(iii) Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 123/2016 of Inspector Ekram Khan The aforesaid delinquent employee, who at the relevant time was posted as Station House Officer, Phulwarisharif was subjected to Disciplinary Proceeding on the charge of not registering a case against Md. Shaifullah in time. this led to filing of a complaint case and a criminal Writ No. 260/2016 wherein Hon'ble High Court directed Sr. S.P to file his show cause. Had it been lodged in time it would not have given rise to this situation and for thus for charges of delayed lodging of FIR the proceeding was initiated and City S.P (West) was appointed as Conducting Officer. The delinquent employee filed his reply on 29.01.2017 stating inter alia that the Complaint case said to have been filed was not brought to his notice by the concerned persons namely Jawahar Mishra and Jainandan Sharma. In the past there had been no allegation against him of not registering the FIR in time. During his posting at Phulwarisharif there was serious law and order problem which always kept him engaged however he worked to the best of his satisfaction. However, the enquiry report was submitted on 15.05.2017 holding the charges against the delinquent employee to be true. Despite the fact that the action against the erring and guilty officials namely Jawahar Mishra and Jainandan Sharma had already been taken.
This matter came for my consideration and in capacity of disciplinary authority I examined the entire record such as
27. OA 348 of 2021 charge memo, exhibits, statement of witnesses, the remarks of Enquiry Officer and also the explanation given by the delinquent employee and having considered the removal of the guilty constable Jawahar Mishra and Jainendra Sharma and initiation of enquiry against them for not presenting the case for its institution, the case of delinquent employee was considered in its totality and the punishment awarding "warning" was issued against the said delinquent employee on 31.07.2018.
This matter was reviewed at the level of Director General of Police under Rule 853(A) of the Bihar Police Manual and the order passed by me was set aside and the proceeding under CCA Rules, 2005 was directed to be initiated against the delinquent employee afresh vide dated 05.03.2020.
The Inspector General of Police, Patna range passed the consequential order on 21.09.2020 awarding the punishment of withholding of increment of six months which is equivalent to punishment of one black mark without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.
(iv) Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 389/2018 of Inspector Rakesh KumarBhaskar The aforesaid delinquent employee who at the relevant time was posted as Station House Officer, Secretariat Police Station was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and a charge dated 01.09.2018 was instituted against him for being in discipline and negligent. In the midnight of 14.08.2018, One Sri Rajiv Kumar was murdered by unknown person during course of robbery when the place of occurrence is at close distance from the Police Station. An explanation by the delinquent employee was given on 29.09.2018 stating inter alia that acting promptly search was conducted and on the basis of his information the accused persons namely Sunny Kumar and Shrawan Kumar were arrested with the looted jewelry. The said case was fully solved in no time and thus he prayed for exoneration from charges.
The enquiry officer submitted his report recording the findings of prompt action taken by the delinquent employee however for not discharging expected duties the delinquent employee was found guilty.
Taking into account the totality of the circumstances and also observation of enquiry officer, the charged memo and others relevant facts having bearing upon this case the delinquent employee was awarded the punishment of "warning".
28. OA 348 of 2021 The Director General of Police However, reviewed the matter under the provision of Rule 853(A) of the Bihar Police Manual and upon his consideration awarded him the punishment of withholding of increment of six months vide his order dated 25.06.2020 and the consequential order of the Inspector General Police has also been issued vide his order under Memo No. 228 dated 29.06.2020 without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.
(v)Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 157/2016 of Inspector Ranjit Kumar The aforesaid delinquent employee was charged of not taking care of 13 files of proceeding/investigation which was given to him under Rule 828(g) of the Bihar Police Manual. Despite lapse of considerable period of time the files was not examined which is not expected from a Police Officer of the rank of Inspector.
The charged employee filed his explanation on 22.06.2017 before the conducting officer stating inter alia that the police station where he was posted was not having sufficient staff even the Munsi and Reader were not posted in the said Police Station. Stating his satisfactory work and denying the allegation of negligence the delinquent employee prayed for exoneration of the charges.
The Enquiry Officer however found the charges of keeping the files pending and submitted these report dated 06.07.2017.
The matter was looked into by the undersigned in capacity of disciplinary authority. Having regard to the materials available on record including the charge memo exhibits the enquiry report and the explanation of the delinquent employee it was found that for want of necessary staff in the police station, the assigned duty could not be completed in the given circumstances and as such the delinquent employee was punished with "warning" vide my order dated 22.10.2018.
Under the provisions of Rule 853(A) of the Bihar Police Manual the case was reviewed and the Director General of Police in his Considered Opinion set aside the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by me and on the basis of proved charges considered it appropriate for the punishment of "censure" and entry of the same in his service book vide his order dated 01.09.2020 without commenting anything adverse against me. The Inspector General of Police accordingly passed order of "censure" against the said
29. OA 348 of 2021 employee and directed for its entry in his service book vide his order dated 05.09.2020.
(vi)Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 84/2016 of Inspector Sudhir Kumar The said delinquent employee who at the relevant time was posted at Station House Officer, Kadamkuan was charged of not having registered a case of chain snatching in time. Further he was charged of not acting promptly in a case of domestic violence on complaint. On these charges of negligence and of indiscipline the delinquent employee was suspended and the departmental proceeding was initiated on 11.04.2016 appointing City S.P. (East) to be Enquiry Officer.
The said delinquent employee submitted his explanation dated 05.06.2017 explaining the circumstances of the charges framed against him. He narrated that he has always been careful and discipline to his work. He explained the contribution he made to the department during his service tenure and prayed to exonerate from his charges taking sympathetic view.
The enquiry report was submitted on 13.06.2017 by the Enquiry Officer holding the charges to be partially proved. This matter came for my consideration and having regard to the facts and circumstances and also the finding of the enquiry officer the said delinquent employee was given to the punishment of "warning" by my order dated 10.12.2018.
Again this matter was reviewed at the level of Director General of Police and differing with my finding the order of punishment was modified to withholding of two increments with noncumulative effect and the salary of the period of suspension will be adjusted towards earn leave vide order dated 11.05.2020.
The consequential order under Memo No. 141 dated 15.05.2020 has been passed by the Inspector General of Police without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.
(vii) Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 378/2018 of Inspector KamkhayaNarayan Singh The aforesaid delinquent employee who at the relevant time was posted as Station House Officer, Agamkuan was charged of not having control over his subordinate staff and he did not control over one Agamkaun P.S. Case No. 194/2018. For lack of control over subordinate staff the
30. OA 348 of 2021 said delinquent employee was put under suspension and the charge dated 06.08.2018 was framed against him. The said delinquent employee submitted his explanation which was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer who on the basis of one enquiry report submitted on 24.06.2018 held the charges to be true vide his enquiry report dated 04.10.2018.
This matter came for my consideration and having examining the entire record including charge memo, exhibits, statement of witnesses, the opinion of the Enquiry Officer and also explanation of the delinquent employee. Having regards to outstanding performance in several Police Cases and taking into account the circumstances narrated in the explanation the case of the delinquent employee was considered sympathetically and the punishment of warning was awarded against him vide order dated 12.12.2018.
Again this matter was reviewed by the Director General of Police under Rule 853(A) of the Bihar Police Manual and upon consideration my order dated 12.12.2018 was set aside and the punishment of withholding of increment of two years and the salary for the period of suspension was held to be adjustable towards earned leave vide order dated 18.05.2020 and similar order dated 22.05.2020 has been passed by the Inspector General of Police without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.
9.In aforesaid appeals and proceedings I acted in good faith and with all fairness as Appellate Authority and modified the punishment commensurate with the gravity of misconduct as any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct violets Article 14 of the Constitution of India. My decision of modification of order of punishment is neither illogical nor suffers from procedural impropriety or shocks the conscience of a Judicious Person. It has not been passed in defiance of logic or moral standards. It is one of the cardinal principles of administration of justice that the proceeding must be free from bias of any kind. The delinquent employees have not been found actuated by corrupt motive hence in my considered and careful scrutiny the punishment awarded to them was modified and reduced to the punishment of 'warning'.
10 .The order reducing the punishment of delinquent employee was passed upon minute evaluation of the materials on record. The charges against the delinquent employees, their explanation, evidences in support of charges, the enquiry report was also looked into before
31. OA 348 of 2021 arriving to final conclusion. The charges were mainly of carelessness, lack of alertness and delay in execution of work and not of corruption or moral turpitude and as such exercising "Quasi-Judicial Power" the proportionate punishment order was passed without being prejudiced in any manner. In my considered opinion the delinquent employee deserved to be criticized for their carelessness and delay in execution of work and as such after careful scrutiny of explanation and in the given circumstances the punishment was reduced to "warning". In terms of Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, if a Government Servant is awarded "warning" after adopting the prescribed procedure and entered into character roll; in that case it shall have adverse effect on promotion for one year. This Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 apply to every government servant, if a government servant is awarded "warning" after adopting the prescribed procedure and entered into character roll, in that case it shall have adverse effect on promotion for one year. The due care and caution was followed before passing order maintaining consistency.
11 All procedural reasonableness which is the main objective and the requirement of natural justice and to prevent its miscarriage was followed with all fairness in deciding the proceedings and appeals which came for my consideration. I have maintained zero tolerance for corruption and in matters of major charges have punished the delinquent employee proportionate to the wrongs committed by them.
12 The reasons of disagreement with the finding of disciplinary authority was recorded on the basis of evidence of each case by due application of mind inferred from the facts of each case without any discrimination and undue favour. An error of interpretation of law can't be a ground for misconduct unless it is deliberate and actuated by mala fides. If an error of law would constitute misconduct, it would be difficult to discharge the function of a quasi-judicial authority without any fear. Such an action can also be corrected by the higher authorities. Promotion to an employee is a natural consequence so it may not be inferred as extraneous consideration.
13 The forum of appellate authority is mainly to prevent miscarriage of justice. The order passed by disciplinary authority is always amenable to correction by the appellate authority and similarly the order of the
32. OA 348 of 2021 appellate authority is amenable to correction by the revisional authority. In any event the departmental proceeding should not be conducted in a slip-shod manner. Exercising this quasi-judicial authority, the disciplinary/ appellate/ revisional authorities have been taking corrective measures by enhancing/reducing the punishment in exercise of their quasi-judicial power. The review of such orders in other police ranges would show that even in serious offences the order of punishment of dismissal has been reduced to minor punishment in different police ranges. Such examples are found in Sahabad Range as mentioned in column-9 and 10 of the charge sheet at page-29 whereby in Rohtas district D.P. No.5/2017 the charges of taking bribe of 1.5 lacs for appointment as constable was proved against the delinquent employee and the disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal which was reduced to the penalty of withholding of two annual increments. In another matter of Shahabad range being Rohtas district DP No. 12/2017 where withholding of increment of six months equivalent to one black mark was passed by the disciplinary authority was reviewed at revisional level and the revisional authority in exercise of power vested in him set aside the said order of punishment even when charges were of corruption. There are several such examples in different police ranges where the disciplinary /appellate authorities have passed order exonerating the delinquent employee even where charges were proved against the delinquent employees. 14 That in my 17 years of service I have worked to the complete satisfaction of all my seniors on all standards. My Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) have been throughout "Excellent". My ACRs have been written up to 2020 and my seniors and higher authorities have given excellent remarks in the columns of control over crime, detection of crime and maintaining discipline among the subordinates. My performance has always been appreciated in all my ACRs. Several letters of appreciation have been given by higher authorities on my performance in crime control. By motivating subordinate officials several hardcore criminals were arrested and crime was controlled remarkably. I worked hard for crime control, for maintaining communal harmony, peace and security in the society, effective and efficient investigation of supervision of cases, carried out welfare activities for police personnel and their families, disposed of pending departmental proceedings and appeal, inspected and directed subordinate functionaries for improvement of their performance, took creative initiatives for the systematic change in policy and also