IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3936 of 2003
...
Sanjay Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. Director General of Police, Ranchi.
3. Inspector General of Police, Ranchi.
4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ranchi.
5. Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur.
... ... Respondents .
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY.
For the Petitioner : Dr. S.N. Pathak, Advocate.
For the State : Ms. Nehala Shramin, Advocate.
.........
3/05.08.2009
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner was a Police constable posted at Golmuri
P.S., Jamshedpur. He is challenging his dismissal from service by the
Disciplinary Authority after a departmental proceeding in which, the
charges against him was found to be proved.
3. The facts in short are that the petitioner and one
another Police Constable Vidyakant Upadhyay were, posted at
Golmuri Police Station. On 02.05.2001, both the Constables came to
the foreign Section of the Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Jamshedpur and received three Passports applications, one of
which was of one Amit Kumar. The petitioner and the other
constable went to the house of said Amit Kumar and in the name of
verification, realized Rs.800/- by way of illegal gratification from the
mother of Amit Kumar namely Smt. Shila Singh. On the report of Shila
Singh, one First Information Report was registered against both the
Police Constables i.e. against the petitioner and Vidyakant
Upadhyay.
4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was
submitted in the said criminal case. Simultaneously, a departmental
proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner in which, the
petitioner participated and after completion of inquiry, the inquiry
report was submitted as contained in Annexure-3 in which, charges
against the petitioner was found to be established. On the basis of
2 W.P.(S) No. 3936 of 2003
such inquiry report, the Superintendent of Police – cum – Disciplinary
Authority, on consideration of facts and materials on record,
awarded the punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner
holding that such corrupt, indisciplined and disobedient Police
Constables should not be restrained in the disciplined Police force.
The said order of punishment was passed by the Superintendent of
Police on 16.10.2002 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
5. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal before the
appellate forum against the order of dismissal from the service and
during the pendency of the said appeal, he also filed the present
writ petition before this Court.
6. It appears that during pendency of this writ petition, the
appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the appellate
authority on 29.05.2004 and the said fact has been brought on
record by way of Supplementary Affidavit and the appellate order
has been made Annexure-1 to the said Supplementary Affidavit.
7. Dr. S.N. Pathak submitted that for the same set of
charge and on the same facts and allegations, the criminal case
which was instituted against the petitioner, ended in his acquittal by
a competent Court of law and therefore, in view of the Judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat and
others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446, the dismissal of the petitioner
from the service is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that
the enquiry officer wrongly and illegally relying on the hearsay
evidence which is not admissible in evidence, has found the
petitioner guilty in a departmental proceeding and, therefore, the
same is not sustainable in law. Lastly he submitted that the
punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate
to the charge leveled against him.
8. The Judgment passed by the Criminal Court has been
annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On perusal of the same, I
find that the Judgment in the criminal case was passed on
10.03.2003 whereas, the departmental inquiry was concluded much
prior to that. The inquiry report was submitted on 16.04.2002 and on
the basis of the said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed
3 W.P.(S) No. 3936 of 2003
the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from the service on
16.10.2002. Therefore, the fact of the present case is that firstly the
departmental proceeding was concluded and punishment of
dismissal was awarded in the year 2002 and thereafter,
subsequently, on 10.03.2003, the petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal case.
9. On perusal of the inquiry report, it appears that in course
of departmental proceeding, Smt. Shila Singh i.e. the mother of Amit
Kumar, was examined and she stated that her son Amit Kumar is a
Software Engineer and had applied for a Passport since he had to
go out of the country and in course of that, two Constables came to
her quarter and asked for illegal gratification of Rs.800/-, which paid
to them. She identified the petitioner when the Officer Incharge of
the Police Station asked her to identify.
10. From perusal of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court,
which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, I find
that the learned Trial Court acquitted the petitioner considering the
fact that Mrs. Shila Singh did not identify the petitioner in the Dock on
the ground that much time has elapsed and she did not remember
the face.
11. Therefore, from the facts stated above, it is clear that
though the allegations in the departmental proceeding and in the
criminal trial were same but the facts placed before the two forums
i.e. in the disciplinary proceeding and in the criminal trial were not
the same. In the departmental proceeding, Smt. Shila Singh made
specific allegation of accepting illegal gratification by the petitioner
and she identified him also, whereas, in Course of criminal Trial, she
did not identify the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
facts and evidence in both the proceedings were the same.
It is well established principles of law that the standard
of proof in a criminal trial is completely different to that of standard
of proof in a departmental proceeding. In a criminal trial, the charge
has to be established and proved beyond all reasonable doubts
whereas that is not so in the departmental proceeding. In a
4 W.P.(S) No. 3936 of 2003
departmental proceeding, the charge can be published on
preponderance of probability.
12. The Judgment of the Supreme Court on which the
petitioner has placed reliance i.e. G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat and
others (Supra), is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of
the case in view of the fact that in the said case before the Supreme
Court, the departmental proceeding against the incumbent was still
pending and during the pendency of the criminal trial, the
Government servant was acquitted from the charges by the Trial
Court and, therefore, in the given facts of that case, the Supreme
Court held that the finding of the departmental proceeding was
contrary to the findings recorded in the criminal trial and, therefore,
the same was unjust and unfair. In the said case, the Supreme Court
also noticed the fact that the facts and evidence in departmental
as well as criminal proceedings were same without there being any
iota of difference and, therefore, the dismissal of incumbent was set
aside whereas, in the present case, the evidence of both the
proceedings i.e. before the departmental proceeding and in the
criminal trial, were not the same. The departmental inquiry was
concluded much prior to the Judgment passed by the Criminal
Court. Therefore, the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat and others
(Supra) is not applicable in the facts in the circumstances of the
present case.
13. The argument of Dr. S.N. Pathak that the enquiry officer
relying on hearsay evidence has held the petitioner guilty, is also
liable to be rejected in view of the fact that from the records, it
appears that there is direct evidence of Smt. Shila Singh and she was
not a hearsay witness. It was she who had paid illegal gratification to
the petitioner and she identified the petitioner as the man who
received the money. Therefore, there is no force in the arguments of
learned counsel for the petitioner.
14. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, I do
not find it to be disproportionate to the charge in view of the fact
that the petitioner, being a Police Constable and member of the
disciplined force, has to show high standard of discipline and
conduct and, therefore, in my view, the disciplinary authority has
5 W.P.(S) No. 3936 of 2003
rightly held that keeping such corrupt, indisciplined and disobedient
Police Constables in the disciplined force shall adversely affect the
other Policemen and would tarnish the image of Police force. No
modification in the punishment is required.
15. Thus, on consideration of the facts stated above, I do
not find it a fit case for any interference. Accordingly, having found
no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.
RC/ (Amareshwar Sahay, J.)