Rudal Prasad Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.

These Letters Patent Appeal have been filed by Rudal Prasad Singh and Bijul Kumar Singh against the common order dated 5th April 2023 passed by the writ Court in W.P(S) No.4108 of 2015 and analogous cases declining to interfere with the order of punishment awarded to them in a disciplinary proceeding.

On the allegation that the appellants had connived with Rana Umesh Singh whose brother was shown to have been appointed as a Police Constable by forging documents, the delinquents were proceeded in a departmental inquiry. In connection therewith, Chatra (Sadar) PS Case No. 91 of 2012 was also lodged on 16th May 2012 under sections 379, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal case had failed because the witnesses did not turn up and, therefore, GR No. 424 of 2012 ended in acquittal of Rana Umesh Singh and others. However, in the domestic inquiry Rana Umesh Singh, Shubh Chandra Jha, Rudal Prasad Singh and Bijul Kumar Singh were found guilty and accordingly awarded punishment.

The order of dismissal dated 1st September 2013 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the appellate order dated 14th June 2015 were put to challenge before the writ Court by Rudal Prasad Singh by filing W.P(S) No. 4123 of 2015, Bijul Kumar Singh by filing W.P(S) No. 4139 of 2015 and Gambhira Devi as legal representative of Shubh Chandra Jha in W.P(S) No. 4108 of 2015. However, the writ Court did not interfere in the matter and dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions by a common order dated 5th April 2023.

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no consideration by the writ Court in the order dated 5th April 2023 by which W.P(S) No. 4123 of 2015 and W.P(S) No. 4139 of 2015 have been dismissed merely referring to an order passed by the writ Court in W.P(S) No. 3225 of 2016; that writ petition was filed by Rana Umesh Singh.

After having gone through the materials on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the writ Court’s decision dated 5th April 2023 not to interfere in the matter. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are discretionary and are not exercised merely because some arguable points have been raised. Granting any indulgence in the matter like the present one would be a futile exercise and having the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan” (1980) 4 SCC 379 in mind that the Courts do not issue futile writs, we decline to interfere in these matters.

To begin with, maybe the role played by the appellants were different but it was the collaborative efforts by all the delinquents to project Dinesh Kumar Singh as validly appointed to the post of Police Constable. The charges framed against the delinquents were found proved and they were awarded punishments in a duly constituted departmental inquiry. We have also this in our mind that the orders passed by the departmental authorities cannot be interfered with in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless it is demonstrated before the Court that the order of punishment was passed in breach of natural justice or contrary to the extant service rules. As the charge against the appellants would reflect, the quantum of punishment is not an issue before the Court and the order of punishment is not such that shocks the conscience of the Court [refer, “Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India” (1987) 4 SCC 611].

For the foregoing reasons, these Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed.