The 30-page long judgement of Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra in Maharana Pratap Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (2025). has set aside the judgement dated November 16, 2016 delivered by the Patna High Court's Division Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hemant Gupta, Acting Chief Justice together with the orders dated June 21, 1996, July 14, 1997 and August 6, 2003, issued by Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Patna, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Patna and Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police, Bihar respectively. The judgement authored by Justice Amanullah read:"we do not find that the order of punishment could have been interfered with by the learned Single Bench. Consequently, Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed. Judgment dated 16.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 471 of 2004 is set aside and the writ petition stands dismissed." The High Court's judgement passed by Justice S.N. Hussain, the Single Judge dated July 16, 2013 has been upheld by the Supreme Court by its judgement dated April 23, 2025.
The writ petition was filed in the High Court by Maharana Pratap Singh, the petitioner challenging order of the Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Patna dated June 21, 1996 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service with a further direction that he will not get anything for the period of suspension except what had already been paid to him. He challenged the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Patna dated July 14, 1997 dismissing petitioner’s appeal. He also challenged order of the Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police, Bihar dated August 6, 2003 dismissing revision/memorial of the petitioner and affirming the decision of the first authority. He prayed for directing the respondents to give the petitioner all consequential benefits arising out of his impugned dismissal.
The petitioner had claimed that after due procedures of law he was appointed as constable in Dog Squad of Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D.) and he joined the post in the year 1973 and for about 15 years continued to serve the department and only in the month of August, 1988 he proceeded on Earned Leave for two days, whereafter he was to resume his duty on August 8, 1988. However, on August 7, 1988 one Prem Kumar Singh lodged an F.I.R. for cheating and extortion against unknown persons and on his request a raiding party was organized which went to Rajsthan Hotel, Patna on August 8, 1988 where the accused was expected to be coming to collect Rs.40,000.00 from the informant. In the meantime after availing his Earned Leave the petitioner came to Patna on August 8,1988 and while he was proceeding towards his office to join his duty, the informant forcibly handed over a briefcase to him near Rajsthan Hotel and immediately thereafter he was arrested by the raiding party and was brought to Kotwali Police Station where he was locked in the Hajat. On the same date the petitioner was suspended by his superior authority. The police submitted its charge sheet on October 5, 1988 whereafter cognizance was taken and finally the trial commenced in which judgment dated April 26, 1994 was passed convicting the petitioner and other accused persons and punishing them by sentence for different charges. However, when the petitioner along with other co-accused preferred Criminal Appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Patna, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case.
But a departmental proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner on June 14, 1989 on the written statement of the informant and show-cause notice along with memo of charges were served upon him. On receipt of the show-cause notice the petitioner vide letter dated March 15, 1990 filed a representation requesting the authorities to keep the departmental proceeding pending till finalization of criminal case against him stating that if the petitioner cross-examines the witness in the departmental proceeding then the informant will take undue advantage in the court where the criminal case was pending. However, ignoring the request of petitioner the Conducting Officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted his report on June 23, 1995 finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter the disciplinary authority, namely the Superintendent of Police issued second show-cause notice to the petitioner on June 23, 995 along with an enquiry report in response to which the petitioner filed his detailed show-cause on March 11, 1996 stating the entire facts of the case and also stating the alleged illegalities committed by the Conducting Officer in course of impugned order dated June 21, 1996 accepting the enquiry report and dismissing the petitioner from his service without taking into consideration the show-cause filed by the petitioner against the proposed punishment. This order was affirmed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police as well as the Director General of Police vide impugned orders dated July 14, 1997 and August 6, 2003 in which the points raised by the petitioner were not considered. The revision/memorial of the petitioner remained pending for a long time. It was only on a direction of Patna High Court vide order dated May 13, 2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No.5946 of 2002 the said memorial was decided on August 6, 2003 by the revisional authority in a haste post haste manner.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority as well as of the appellate and the revisional authorities challenging the procedures adopted by the Conducting Officer in the enquiry and the manner in which the points raised by him in his second show-cause as well as in the memorandum of appeal and the revision application had been ignored by the concerned authorities, although he proved that the entire allegations against the petitioner were false and fabricated due to the mischief and bias of the allegationist as well as the frivolity in the evidence of the two witnesses produced in the departmental proceeding, The informant’s claim was rejected by the Court of law in the criminal appeal holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges by any valid evidence. The impugned orders were illegal, arbitrary and perverse and were fit to be quashed.
Justice Hussain's verdict stands vindicated. He had quashed the impugned orders of the authorities dated June 21, 1996, July 14, 1997 and August 6, 2003. Supreme Court's judgement authored by Justice Datta upheld it. Justice Hussain had directed the respondents-authorities "to give the petitioner all consequential benefits since the date of dismissal of his service, which has been quashed by this order." Supreme Court has modified the extent of consequential benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment