IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1315 of 2003
...
Manohar Toppo ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Inspector General Prison, (Home) Prison Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Hazaribagh.
... ... Respondents .
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. S.C. - II,
Ms. Nehala Nehala Shramin, Advocate.
.........
07/05.08.2009
Heard the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is a Police
Constable, has prayed for quashing that part of the order as
contained in memo No. 165 dated 21.01.2003 (Annexure-8) so far as
it relates to the petitioner depriving him from the salary for the period
from 17.08.1995 till 21.01.2003 i.e. the period during which the
petitioner was under suspension.
3. According to the petitioner, he, along with two other
Constables namely Rama Shankar Singh and Tulsi Sao were
proceeded departmentally for dereliction in duty. The charges
against all the three including the petitioner was that they were
given the custody of one prisoner for taking him to the Sadar
Hospital, Hazaribagh for treatment on 18.11.1993 and to guard him
but the prisoner who was under treatment in custody, escaped and,
therefore, the petitioner as well as two others were proceeded
departmentally for dereliction in their duties. During the pendency of
the departmental proceeding, all the three persons including the
petitioner were put under suspension. After the departmental
proceeding all the three Policemen were found guilty for dereliction
in their duties. The Constable Rama Shankar Singh, who was the
guard incharge, was given punishment of reduction in his pay scale
and brining him in the initial scale of pay. He was further awarded
punishment that he shall not be given benefits of promotion for two
2 W.P.(S) No. 1315 of 2003
years. This petitioner i.e. Manohar Toppo was also awarded
punishment of reduction in pay scale and placing him in the initial
scale of pay.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the
proceedee Ram Shankar Singh filed an appeal before the appellate
forum which was heard by I.G. (Prison), Bihar and he, by his order
dated 23.10.1999 allowed the appeal of said Rama Shankar Singh by
giving him benefits of doubt and thereby, set aside the order of
punishment passed against him by the disciplinary authority.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ-petition before this Court
bearing C.W.J.C. no. 3626 of 1999 (R) which was allowed to be
withdrawn by order dated 13.06.2001 contained in Annexure-3 in
order to enable the petitioner to pursue the review application filed
by the petitioner and pending before the Superintendent of Jail,
Hazaribagh. Since the review petition was not being disposed of and
as such, the petitioner filed again a writ petition in this Court bearing
W.P.(S) No. 6048 of 2001, which was disposed of by order dated
21.12.2001 contained in Annexure-4, by which a direction was made
to the authority concerned to expedite the hearing of the review
petitioner and to dispose of the same preferably within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pursuant thereto, the order as contained in Annexure-8 has been
passed on 21.01.2003 whereby, the punishment awarded by the
disciplinary authority was modified and reduced but, it was directed
that the petitioner would not get the salary for the period during
which he was put under suspension.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the same facts,
same evidence and same allegation, other proceedees namely
Rama Shankar Singh, who was also awarded the same punishment
by the disciplinary authority but, later on, his punishment has been
set aside and he has been paid the salary for the period during
which he was under suspension but the petitioner has been treated
differently and thereby, he is being discriminated.
6. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the case
of the present writ petitioner cannot be equated with the aforesaid
security guard Rama Shankar Singh who had the responsibility to
3 W.P.(S) No. 1315 of 2003
look into the arrangements but the petitioner was directly
responsible for the safety of the prisoner and, at the time of escape
of the prisoner, the petitioner was found absent from the duty. It is
further stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of
by the order as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit.
7. After having gone through the enquiry report contained
in Annexure-1, it appears that the allegations, the evidence as well
as charges against all the three proceedees were exactly the same
and all the three policemen were given the charge of the prisoner
and all the three duty bound to bring and guard the prisoner from
Central Jail, Hazaribagh to the Sadar Hospital under their custody
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the responsibility of all the
three persons were not similar rather I find that the duties and
responsibilities of all the three persons were the same.
8. Therefore, from the facts noticed above, I find
substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
When the other Policeman Rama Shankar Singh has been allowed
to draw the salary for the periods during which he was under
suspension then, the petitioner cannot be treated differently.
9. Accordingly, this petition is being disposed of at this
stage itself by directing the authorities concerned to allow the
petitioner to draw salary for the period during which he was put
under suspension during the pendency of the departmental enquiry.
10. With this observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
RC/SI (Amareshwar Sahay, J.)