Pasupati Nath Thakur filed the writ petition (civil) on September 10, 2009. It was registered on that very day. The first order was passed on October 10, 2009 by Justice Navin Sinha. The second order was passed by Justice Shivaji Pandey on January 25, 2018. On February 28, 2018, Justice Pandey made an order. It reads:"It appears that the State has not filed any counter affidavit in the matter. Let the State file counter affidavit in the matter within three weeks from today. In failure to file the counter affidavit, the Court will decide the case on the basis of the materials available on record. Let this case be listed after three weeks under the same heading."
On March 26, 2018, Justice Pandey passed an order. It reads: "This Court on 28.2.2018 has granted time to the State to file counter affidavit but till date no counter affidavit has been filed. Let this case be listed on 20th April, 2018 under the same heading. It the State fails to file counter affidavit, on the next date, the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur will remain physically present in Court to assist this Court." On July 11, 2018, Justice Mohit Kumar Shah made an order in Pasupati
Nath Thakur vs. State of Bihar. It reads: "The respondents are directed
to produce file pertaining to the conduct of departmental proceeding
against the petitioner herein within a period of four weeks from today.
List after four weeks." It is clear from the order that the the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur is the key respondent. Neither the orders nor the case status on the Court's website provide details about other respondents.
The writ petition was dismissed and disposed on August 16, 2018. The writ petition was filed for quashing the order of punishment dated 6.12.2003 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service as also the order dated 12.6.2009 passed by the Director General of Police whereunder the Appeal memorial, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Departmental Proceeding No. 08 of 1999 and charges were framed pertaining to the petitioner engaging in gross misconduct and indiscipline, disobeying the orders of the authorities and being absconder from duty. The petitioner was intimated for appearing in the ongoing departmental proceeding vide memo No. 12.5.1999, 29.7.1999, 22.8.1999, 30.8.1999, 5.10.1999, 6.11.1999, 20.11.1999 and 25.12.2000, but the petitioner did not appear in the Reserve office. Thereafter, a registered letter dated 8.6.1999 as also other letters were sent by the Superintendent of Police, Patna to the petitioner for participating in the ongoing departmental proceeding. The enquiry officer had then, on the basis of the materials available on record, found the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, being in agreement with the opinion of the enquiry officer, issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner on 3.3.2002 and upon request of the petitioner herein, further time was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply, but he did not submit any clarification resulting in the disciplinary authority passing the order of punishment of dismissal from service dated 6.12.2003. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Range, Dehri-on-Sone before whom the petitioner had preferred an appeal, rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 14.2.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have filed appeal/ memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, which was rejected by an order dated 12.6.2009.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that on account of bona fide reason, the petitioner could not attend his duties. It is further submitted that the impugned order of punishment is bad inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and the enquiry has been conducted ex parte.
The order of Justice Shah reads: "I find that there is no lacuna in conduct of the disciplinary proceeding as against the petitioner herein and on this score no fault can be found. Now, coming to the issue raised by the petitioner regarding him not having been granted opportunity of hearing, during the course of the disciplinary proceeding, I find that the petitioner had voluntarily not submitted his clarification and deliberately avoided participating in the disciplinary proceedings, which proves the guilt of the petitioner beyond doubt."
He observed: "It is also clear from the records that the petitioner is a habitual absconder from duty. It is a trite law that no indiscipline can be tolerated by the employees of an armed force/police force and any misconduct on the part of such delinquents is required to be treated with firm hands inasmuch as tolerating any sort of indiscipline will amount to spreading a wrong message amongst other members of the armed force/police force."
The Court noted that "charges levelled against the petitioner have been conclusively proved beyond doubt, the petitioner has no defence to the same and admittedly he has been an absconder inasmuch as the petitioner was absent from duty in an unauthorized manner without leave."
It concluded: "the order of punishment dated 06.12.2003 as also the appellate order dated 14.02.2007 and the Appeal memorial order dated 12.06.2009 do not require any interference, there being no procedural infirmity or impropriety in conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated herein above, there is no merit in the present writ petition, hence, the same is dismissed."
Pashupati Nath Thakur filed Letters Patent Appeal in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12945 of 2009 on October 16, 2019 against four respondents, namely the State of Bihar, the D.G.-cum-I.G. of Police, Patna, Bihar, the D.I.G. of Police, Shahabad Range, Dehari On-Son and the S.P., Bhojpur. It was registered on that very day. On August 5, 2024, the division bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Pandey condoned the delay in filing LPA No. 1352 of 2019. The order records: "The appellant has assailed the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2018. In LPA No. 1352 of 2019 on 16.10.2019, there is a delay of about 76 days while taking note of the uploading of learned Single Judge order was on 30.05.2019. For the reasons stated in application and read with the affidavit delay of about 76 days stands condoned."
On August 27, 2024, the bench of Justices Bajanthri and Pandey recorded in their order that "Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the State could not apprise this Court with reference to the original records in respect of departmental enquiry. One of the issue is relating to communication of charge memo to the appellant and to that extent and what is the material document is available on the record. Further, we are not satisfied with the mentioning of dates in the charge memo whether it is 1998 or 1999. Similarly, if he remains ex-parte in the enquiry, the enquiring officer had issued notice to the appellant for his appearance on various dates and such of those copies of the notices address to which place and other details are not forthcoming. Further, assuming that he remained ex-parte. In all fairness, disciplinary authority and enquiry authority was required to undertake notifying the proposed disciplinary proceedings in the leading newspaper publication where the last residential address furnished by the appellant. Similarly, while issuing second show cause notice and so also passing final order of dismissal on 06.12.2003. In other words, even though, Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the State is having original records and he is not in a position to apprise the aforementioned information."
The order concluded: "Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur is hereby directed to depute an official who is well conversant with the present file so as to assist in the matter with reference to all dates and events read with documents including relevant regulations/rules governing the constable post for the purpose of initiating and concluding disciplinary proceedings whether was it under Police manual or CCA rules, unamended Rules, 2005, or not?" The case is re-listed for hearing on September 10, 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment