1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5582 of 2011 ….... Shriman Narayan Singh, son of Late Balram Singh, resident of villageNawa Nagar, P.O.Gajraganj, P.S.Udwant Nagar, District Bhojpur, Bihar; presently Constable number 950, Dhanbad.. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, 2. Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Range, Bokar, Jharkhand, 4. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad. ... … Respondents …... CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK …... For the Petitioner : Mr. S.N. Pathak, Sr. Adv. For the Respondents : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, J.C. to A.G. ….... th 12/ Dated 19 February, 2016 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the instant writ application, the petitioner, inter-alia, has prayed for quashing the part of the order dated 24.05.2010 issued by the respondent no. 4 to the extent to which the petitioner has been denied the arrears of salary from the date of dismissal till reinstatement and also of awarding punishment of withholding increments to two years amounting to three black marks. During course of arguments learned senior counsel Mr. S.N. Pathak confines his prayer to part of the order vide Annexure-10 which is impugned in the writ application.
2. Sans details, facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was on deputation in Nepal House (Secretariat) in the year 03.08.2002 in the district of Ranchi and there was allegation that he abused his colleague and senior officials and was doing his duties in an inebriated condition. The petitioner was 2 placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding vide order no. 65/02 was initiated against him. An inquiry officer was appointed who found the petitioner guilty of charges. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer dismissed the petitioner from the services vide order dated 12.06.2003 vide Annexure-3. Being aggrieved with the order of Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
3. Being aggrieved with the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order of Appellate authority, the petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 6169 of 2004 and this Court vide order dated 11.02.2010 has been pleased to quash the order of dismissal and passed an order for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with immediate effect and to treat the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement as spent on duty. No order was passed for payment of backwages for the period of dismissal and till the date of reinstatement. In pursuance to the order passed in the aforesaid writ application, the respondent authority vide order dated 24.05.2010 vide Annexure-10 to the writ application reinstated the petitioner to the services with a clause that he will not be entitled for back wages and also modifying the order of dismissal into stoppage of two increments amounting to three black marks. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances.
4. Mr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing for the 3 petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent no. 4, vide Annexure-10 to the writ application awarding stoppage of two increments amounting to three black marks is the major punishment as contemplated under the Rule 824 of the Police Manual. Hence, the order of punishment passed in pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6169 of 2004 is thoroughly misconceived being not legally sustainable. Learned senior counsel further submits that the impugned order passed at Annexure-10 i.e. stoppage of two increments amounting to three black marks dehors of any statutory provision that too in complete violation of the direction of this Court’s order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6169 of 2004 dated 11.02.22004. It is further submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents nos. 2 to 4 controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble High Court did not pass any order with regard to the payment of back wages to the petitioner based on reasoned ground and accordingly the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, passed the impugned order dated 24.05.2010 directing not to make any payment of back wages of the petitioner in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court apart from passing an order withholding two annual increments of the petitioner equivalent to three black marks.
6. Ms. Shruti Shrestha, J.C. to A.G., learned counsel appearing for the State assiduously submitted that the impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-10 has been passed taking into account the paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment of order dated 4 11.02.2010 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6169 of 2004. Therefore, there is no illegality, irregularity or infirmity committed by the respondent authority in passing the impugned order vide Annexure-10 to the writ application. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the writ is not maintainable since the petitioner has not followed the statutory remedy of appeal under the police manual rule 853 of the Police Manual.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able make out the case for interference by this court in view of the facts stated herein below. On bare perusal of order dated 24.05.2010, makes it explicitly clear awarding stoppage of two annual increments amounting three black marks is major punishment as contemplated under Rule 824 of the police Manual and the impugned order has been passed in misconstruing the purport of the order dated 11.2.2010 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6169 of 2004. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment to the effect of awarding of stoppage of two increments amounting to three black marks is thoroughly misconceived and non-est in the eye of law. Therefore, that portion of the impugned order is set aside and the respondent nos. 2 to 4 are directed to pay benefits of increments of two years to the petitioner within 16 weeks from the date of receipt/ communication of copy of order.
8. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) MM