Satya Prasad Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service-recovery-reduction in pay scale and direction for recovery-alleged receipt of increments on salary for eight years without having received mandatory training-no provision shown which provides for any time, period or limit for completing police training-once petitioner has successfully completed training very basis of reduction of pay scale and also for refund of it does not stand to reason and cannot be sustained in eyes of law-impugned orders quashed-petition allowed. - constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - 5. the main contention raised in the aforesaid writ petition was that the petitioner has been proceeded against departmentally and charge-sheet was submitted framing the article of charges and the departmental proceeding being 18/2004 was pending and in the meanwhile the aforesaid order of reduction of his pay as well as recovery of the excess amount was issued. it is now well established that any order of punishment or any order which is prejudicial or punitive in nature, can not be passed without following the due process of law and without giving the delinquent sufficient opportunity of hearing. the impugned orders are thus violative of the provisions of law as well as the principles of natural justice and the same are null and void. 8. it also submitted that even the appellate authority considered the order of disciplinary authority and upheld the punishment and thus there was full compliance of the principles of natural justice as well as the compliance of the aforesaid order passed.orderajit kumar sinha, j.1. the present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:i) for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order dated 2.8.2005 passed by the superintendent of police r.n. 4 and the order dated 16.9.2006 passed by r.n. 3 the appellate authority whereby and whereunder the respondents have passed an order of punishment by reducing his pay scale to the initial scale of pay lowering it to the scale of rs. 3050/- per month and recovery of to the tune of rs. 1,09,391/- in installments of rs. 2188/- per month,ii) for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the special branch order no. 913/05 dated 2.8.2005 passed by superintendent of police r.n. 4.the facts in brief are stated as under:2. the petitioner was appointed as a constable on 19.6.1988. the petitioner was served with memo of charge dated 7.8.2004 and the petitioner filed a detailed reply stating that the charge has already been disposed of vide different orders of the predecessors of the respondents. however, a disciplinary proceeding started and the enquiry officer after recording the statement of the officers posted in the department gave an ex-parte enquiry report holding the petitioner to be guilty of charges.3. it was held that the petitioner was illegally and unauthorizedly receiving increments on the salary for the last 8 years since 1989 without having received mandatory training and as such his pay was reduced to the lowest scale and recovery of the illegal increments which the petitioner had received was made. on the report of the enquiry officer dated 29.10.2004, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order.4. it is further submitted that initially w.p.(s) no. 1556/05 was filed by the petitioner to quash the office order no. 1168/04 issued vide memo no. 2499(4) dated 10.9.2004 and also to quash the order dated 27.7.2004 issued by the superintendent of police (t) special branch, jharkhand, ranchi whereby the petitioner's pay-scale was reduced to the scale of rs. 3050/- and a sum of rs. 1,09,391/- allegedly paid in excess was sought to be recovered.5. the main contention raised in the aforesaid writ petition was that the petitioner has been proceeded against departmentally and charge-sheet was submitted framing the article of charges and the departmental proceeding being 18/2004 was pending and in the meanwhile the aforesaid order of reduction of his pay as well as recovery of the excess amount was issued.6. the learned single judge vide its order dated 14.6.2005 in w.p. (s) no. 1556 of 2005 held as under:it is now well established that any order of punishment or any order which is prejudicial or punitive in nature, can not be passed without following the due process of law and without giving the delinquent sufficient opportunity of hearing. in the instant case admittedly the charge sheet was served and the proceeding was in progress and in the mean while the impugned annexures-4 & 5 have been passed reducing the petitioner's pay scale and directing recovery of rs. 1,09,391/- from him. the impugned orders are thus violative of the provisions of law as well as the principles of natural justice and the same are null and void. the impugned orders as contained in annexures-4 & 5 are, thus quashed. this writ application is allowed. this court has however, not expressed its opinion regarding the merit of the final order passed in the departmental proceeding as contained in annexure-e against which the petitioner may take appropriate steps as provided in law. 7. the respondents have submitted that after due enquiry and following the aforesaid order passed by the learned single judge dated 14.6.2005 the disciplinary authority passed the punishment which is now sought to be challenged.8. it also submitted that even the appellate authority considered the order of disciplinary authority and upheld the punishment and thus there was full compliance of the principles of natural justice as well as the compliance of the aforesaid order passed.9. according to the learned counsel for the respondent on completion of training which was a mandatory requirement under rule, increments were to be allowed and the fact remains that the petitioner did not complete the training at that period of time and the petitioner was illegally receiving the increments in violation of the rule of police manual.10. the counsel for the petitioner informs that now he, in any case, has completed training.11. the counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment passed by this hon'ble court in w.p. (s) no. 1118 of 2006 (prabhat kumar shrivastava v. the state of jharkhand and ors.) to support his contention wherein the learned single judge has directed as under:in the circumstance, the impugned order dated 14.2.2005 (annexure-2) shall be kept in abeyance till the petitioner undergoes basic training of constable. the petitioner should be sent for basic training of constable on the next opportunity. after he completes the training, the amount recovered from him out of the said amount will be returned to him. 12. the fact remains that once the petitioner has successfully completed the training, the very basis of reduction of pay-scale and also for refund of it does not stand to reason and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. no provision has been shown to me which shows or provides for any time, period or limit for completing the police training.13. considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case this writ petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 2.8.2005 and 16.9.2006, passed by the superintendent of police and the appellate authority, respectively are hereby quashed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:

i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order dated 2.8.2005 passed by the Superintendent of Police R.N. 4 and the order dated 16.9.2006 passed by R.N. 3 the Appellate Authority whereby and whereunder the respondents have passed an order of punishment by reducing his pay scale to the initial scale of pay lowering it to the scale of Rs. 3050/- per month and recovery of to the tune of Rs. 1,09,391/- in installments of Rs. 2188/- per month,

ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the Special Branch order No. 913/05 dated 2.8.2005 passed by Superintendent of Police R.N. 4.

The facts in brief are stated as under:

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 19.6.1988. The petitioner was served with memo of charge dated 7.8.2004 and the petitioner filed a detailed reply stating that the charge has already been disposed of vide different orders of the predecessors of the respondents. However, a disciplinary proceeding started and the Enquiry Officer after recording the statement of the officers posted in the department gave an Ex-parte enquiry report holding the petitioner to be guilty of charges.

3. It was held that the petitioner was illegally and unauthorizedly receiving increments on the salary for the last 8 years since 1989 without having received mandatory training and as such his pay was reduced to the lowest scale and recovery of the illegal increments which the petitioner had received was made. On the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 29.10.2004, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order.

4. It is further submitted that initially W.P.(S) No. 1556/05 was filed by the petitioner to quash the office order No. 1168/04 issued vide memo No. 2499(4) dated 10.9.2004 and also to quash the order dated 27.7.2004 issued by the Superintendent of Police (T) Special Branch, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the petitioner's pay-scale was reduced to the scale of Rs. 3050/- and a sum of Rs. 1,09,391/- allegedly paid in excess was sought to be recovered.

5. The main contention raised in the aforesaid writ petition was that the petitioner has been proceeded against departmentally and charge-sheet was submitted framing the article of charges and the departmental proceeding being 18/2004 was pending and in the meanwhile the aforesaid order of reduction of his pay as well as recovery of the excess amount was issued.

6. The learned Single Judge vide its order dated 14.6.2005 in W.P. (S) No. 1556 of 2005 held as under:

It is now well established that any order of punishment or any order which is prejudicial or punitive in nature, can not be passed without following the due process of law and without giving the delinquent sufficient opportunity of hearing. In the instant case admittedly the charge sheet was served and the proceeding was in progress and in the mean while the impugned Annexures-4 & 5 have been passed reducing the petitioner's pay scale and directing recovery of Rs. 1,09,391/- from him. The impugned orders are thus violative of the provisions of law as well as the principles of natural justice and the same are null and void. The impugned orders as contained in Annexures-4 & 5 are, thus quashed. This writ application is allowed. This Court has however, not expressed its opinion regarding the merit of the final order passed in the departmental proceeding as contained in Annexure-E against which the petitioner may take appropriate steps as provided in law.

7. The respondents have submitted that after due enquiry and following the aforesaid order passed by the learned single judge dated 14.6.2005 the disciplinary authority passed the punishment which is now sought to be challenged.

8. It also submitted that even the Appellate Authority considered the order of disciplinary authority and upheld the punishment and thus there was full compliance of the principles of natural justice as well as the compliance of the aforesaid order passed.

9. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent on completion of training which was a mandatory requirement under Rule, increments were to be allowed and the fact remains that the petitioner did not complete the training at that period of time and the petitioner was illegally receiving the increments in violation of the Rule of Police Manual.

10. The counsel for the petitioner informs that now he, in any case, has completed training.

11. The counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 1118 of 2006 (Prabhat Kumar Shrivastava v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.) to support his contention wherein the learned Single Judge has directed as under:

In the circumstance, the impugned order dated 14.2.2005 (Annexure-2) shall be kept in abeyance till the petitioner undergoes basic training of Constable. The petitioner should be sent for basic training of constable on the next opportunity. After he completes the training, the amount recovered from him out of the said amount will be returned to him.

12. The fact remains that once the petitioner has successfully completed the training, the very basis of reduction of pay-scale and also for refund of it does not stand to reason and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. No provision has been shown to me which shows or provides for any time, period or limit for completing the police training.

13. Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case this writ petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 2.8.2005 and 16.9.2006, passed by the Superintendent of Police and the Appellate Authority, respectively are hereby quashed.