Mritunjay Pandey vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 27.2.2005 whereby and where under the petitioner has been reverted to the lowest pay scale for a period of three years and he will not be entitled to get anything except subsistence allowance and also the period of suspension will be adjusted in the half-earned leave.

The case of the petitioner is that he was posted as a Constable in Gomoh Railway Police Station and while discharging the duty there a memo of charge was issued to him on 24.12.2003 alleging therein two allegations i.e. assaulting two Constables namely Gobardhan Singh and Ram Raj Singh in drunken state as also misbehaving one working lady in the hospital in a drunken state on 2.11.2003.

The petitioner was asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner appeared and gave his reply. The Inquiry Officer found the charge proved against the petitioner and thereafter the same has been referred before the Disciplinary authority which has been accepted by him and vide order dated 27.2.2005 the order of punishment has been passed against which the petitioner filed one memo of appeal before the Deputy Inspector General.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer without any evidence has found the charges proved. Further submission has been made that though the allegation of assaulting Gobardhan Singh and Ram Raj Singh have been made, they have not been brought for their cross-examination. The further submission has been made that the lady Sitwa Devi, against whom allegation has been levelled that the petitioner abused her in a drunken state, has also not supported the case.

Further submission has been made that the punishment is major and has been inflicted which is not prescribed under Rule 824 of the Police Manual.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submission of the petitioner and has submitted that there is concurrent finding of fact. The petitioner was in drunken state as would be evident from the medical report of the Doctor. The witnesses have been examined and thereafter the Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusive finding of proving the charge.

Further submission has been made that the petitioner has filed exhaustive appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General who passed a well reasoned order but the same has not been challenged by the petitioner.

Heard the parties and perused the documents on record.

So far as the contention of the petitioner that the Constables namely Gobardhan Singh and Ram Raj Singh who have been assaulted by the petitioner, have not been called for cross-examination, in my view, the same has got no force in view of the fact that the petitioner has not made any requisition in course of inquiry for their cross-examination. In absence of any requisition to cross-examine the witnesses, at this stage the petitioner cannot take this point when on the basis of the evidence of other witnesses and the report of the Doctor, the charge levelled against the petitioner has been substantiated. This also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the point which has not been raised before the authority cannot be entertained for the first time before this Court as rule is settled.

The allegation of taking liquor has also been substantiated by the report of the Doctor.

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General taking all the points and the appellate authority passed a well reasoned order after touching each and every aspects of the matter para-wise and gave a conclusive finding concurring the finding of the Inquiry Officer and thereafter the appellate authority found that the order is proved against the petitioner which does not require any interference.

The petitioner, however, has not challenged the appellate order while the same was already passed on 31.8.2006 and has also been brought on record in the counter affidavit serving a copy upon the counsel for the petitioner in the year 2006 itself.

So far as the contention of the petitioner that the nature of punishment is not prescribed under the Statute and as the punishment has not been prescribed, the same cannot be inflicted upon the petitioner. Regarding this statement Rule-824 of the Police Manual is relevant to be quoted herein below:-

"824. Description of departmental punishments.--The following punishments which are sanctioned under Section 7 of Act V of 1861 may be inflicted departmentally on a police officer of and below the rank of Inspector:--

(a) dismissal

(b) removal

(c) compulsory retirement

(d) reduction in rank

(e) forfeiture of last increment(s) or future increment(s),

(f) black mark or marks

(g) censure

(h) confinement to quarters for a period not exceeding 15 days

(i) punishment drill

(j) extra guard or fatigue duty.

Provided that the punishments mentioned in Clause (h) and (j) shall be imposed only on members of rank of constables/Havildars and that in clause (i) shall be imposed only on constables.

The petitioner is Constable. Hence, he cannot be lowered down in rank.

In view of the above mentioned position, Rule 832 of the Police Manual provides that no officer shall be reduced to a lower rank than that to which he was directly recruited. Hence, the petitioner being a Constable, no order of reversion can be passed against him.

Thus, the authorities have passed the order in accordance with the provision as contained in Rule-832(a) of the Police Manual which provides as follows:-

"832. Order of reduction.--(a) Every order reducing an officer to a lower post or to a lower stage in his time scale, or withholding an increment, shall state the period for which it shall be effective." 17. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the disciplinary authority has passed the order of punishment by reverting the petitioner to lowest pay scale for a period of three years.

Thus, in compliance of Rule-832 of the Police Manual, as indicated herein above, the order of punishment has been passed which is minor in nature and, as such, the authorities, with all conscious mind, have passed the order.

Since there is concurrent finding of the authorities, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot disturb the finding arrived at on the basis of the evidence produced before them as has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and Another, wherein at paragraph-15 Hon''ble Apex Court held as follows:-

"15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions................." 20. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the petitioner which is serious and there is concurrent finding of the authorities which is based upon the evidence and the petitioner has been provided all opportunity of hearing by following due process and also taking into consideration the order of the appellate authority which has not been challenged, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

This writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit.