Patna High Court
Dinesh Kumar Singh @ P.T.C./ 383 Dinesh … vs The State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10094 of 2019
======================================================
Dinesh Kumar Singh @ P.T.C./383 Dinesh Kumar Singh, S/o Raj Banshi
Singh, then posted at Rail District Jamalpur, permanent resident of Village-
Gahai, P.S. Dhaka, District- East Champaran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, department of
Home Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Patna, Bihar.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat Patna, Bihar.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat Patna, Bihar.
4. The Director General of Police Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
5. The Inspector General of Police (Administration) Police Head Quarters, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
6. The Additional Director General of Police, (Railways), Police Head
Quarters, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
7. The Inspector General of Police (Railways), Police Head Quarters, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Railways), Police Head Quarters,
Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
9. The Superintendent of Rail Police Jamalpur, Rail District Jamalpur, Bihar.
10. The Deputy Superintendent of Rail Police, Jamalpur, Rail District Jamalpur,
Bihar.
11. The Deputy Superintendent of Rail Police, Kiul, Rail District, Jamalpur,
Bihar.
12. The Inspector Police cum Station House Officer Rail Police Station Kiul,
Rail Dist.-Jamalpur, Bihar.
13. Mr. Kameshwar Singh Inspector of Police cum-in-charge sergeant Manor
cum conducting Officer of Rail Dist. Departmental Proceeding No.06 of
2017.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar No. 13, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-III
Patna High Court CWJC No.10094 of 2019 dt.20-01-2025
2/9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-01-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the Rail District
Order No. 518/2018 as contained in Memo no. 740 dated
12.07.2018
passed under the signature of the Superintendent of
Rail Police, Jamalpur, by which he has been inflicted with the
punishment of dismissal. The petitioner also assailed the
appellate order, contained in Memo No. 1/GO dated 02.01.2019
issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Railway),
Bihar, Patna, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner
also came to be rejected. The petitioner, in all, challenged the
entire departmental proceedings, including the memo of charge
as well as the inquiry report submitted by the conducting officer.
3. The short facts, which led to the filing of the
present writ petition, are summarized hereinbelow:
(i) While the petitioner was posted as a Constable in
the Government Railway Police at the Kiul Railway Station, he
was residing in a three storied building along with other
Constables, next to Platform No.4 of the Kiul Railway Station.
On 27-12-2016 a secret information was received regarding
persons indulging in illicit trade of liquor. On tip-off illegal
Patna High Court CWJC No.10094 of 2019 dt.20-01-2025
3/9
trade of illicit wine, one sub Inspector along with two
Constables proceeded towards the Railway yard and
apprehended two persons along with the illicit liquor, leading to
institution of Kiul Rail P.S. Case No. 247 of 2016 for the
offences under Sections 30(a) and 38(i) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, 2016.
(ii) One of the F.I.R. named accused persons,
Shambhu Thathera, has later on confessed that he along with
two other accused persons were bringing liquor from Jharkhand
to Kiul. The escort party of the train, however, searched the bag,
in which they were carrying the illicit liquor and demanded
money from the said accused. When, the train reached Kiul
Railway Station, the Constables took the three accused persons
to a three storied building near the yard, where Constables used
to reside. Three Constables present there in plain cloth emerged
and demanded Rs. 7000/- for releasing the illicit liquor, failing
which the FIR would be lodged and the accused would be
forwarded to jail. The accused persons along with one another
co-accused, namely, Yatish Kumar came with Rs.7000/-, next
morning on 27.12.2016 and paid Rs. 6600/- as illegal
gratification. On payment of gratification, the accused persons
along with illicit liquor were released. The said accused persons
Patna High Court CWJC No.10094 of 2019 dt.20-01-2025
4/9
along with Yatish Kumar proceeded for Lakhisarai through the
railway yard when they were apprehended by the police. The
amount of illegal gratification has been recovered and seized
from one of the inmates of the barracks, namely, Havildar Lalan
Ram.
(iii) In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner has been
served with a charge memo dated 21-01-2017 alleging that he
was residing in the three storied building near the Kiul Railway
Yard along with Havildar Lalan Ram and Constable Rajpati
Shekhar. He along with these two persons had taken illegal
gratification for releasing the said accused Shambhu Thathera
and Yatish Kumar along with their consignment of illicit liquor.
(iv) Upon issuance of the memo of charge, the
Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the
inquiry report on 20.05.2018 holding the charges proved.
Finally after service of second show-cause notice, the
disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of dismissal, which
has also been affirmed by the appellate authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
with respect to the identical charges, Constable Rajpati Shekhar
was also proceeded and dismissed from his service. He
challenged his order of dismissal in C.W.J.C. No. 9512 of 2019.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10094 of 2019 dt.20-01-2025
5/9
The learned Single Judge having perused the entire records and
taking note of the submissions of the respective parties, held
that not even a single competent witness deposed in the enquiry
and thus the facts forming part of the allegation against the
petitioner in the memo of charge could not be proved. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further contended that placing reliance
upon the afore-noted judgment, the departmental proceeding
initiated against other identically situated Constables, which
also culminated in dismissal, have been set aside by this Court
in C.W.J.C. No. 13239 of 2019 [Arvind Kumar v. State of
Bihar and Others] and C.W.J.C. No. 12458 of 2019
[Dipendra Prasad Yadav @ Dipendra Pr. Yadav @ Havladar
v. State of Bihar and Others] vide judgments dated
05.05.2023.
5. Referring to the afore-noted decisions passed by the
learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court, learned counsel for the
petitioner, thus submitted that the case of the petitioner is based
on parity. Taking this Court through the facts of this case, he
urged that identical cases having been allowed by the learned
co-ordinate Bench of this Court, similar view may be taken.
6. Confronting with the afore-noted facts, learned
counsel for the State has fairly contended that it is not in dispute
Patna High Court CWJC No.10094 of 2019 dt.20-01-2025
6/9
that identical memo of charge was framed and issued against
Constable Rajpati Shekhar @ Constable 06 Rajpati Shekhar,
which proceeding was also culminated in his dismissal.
However, his dismissal order was set aside by this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 9512 of 2019.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, this
Court finds that the contention of the petitioner finds substance,
inasmuch as the Constable Rajpati Shekhar was also served with
identical memo of charge dated 21.01.2017 and further dismissed
from his service by the same authority. The appeal of said
Constable was also rejected in identical fashion, which orders were
subject matter of C.W.J.C. No. 9512 of 2019.
8. Before parting with the case, it would be apt to
encapsulate the relevant paragraphs of the decision passed by the
learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9512 of
2016.
“11. Shambhu Thathera and Yatish Kumar,
however, have also not been examined in the
proceedings. They were only two persons
competent of deposing in respect of the occurrence
alleged at the barrack. It is only these two persons
who were competent to state about the petitioner’s
presence, participation in demand and acceptance
Patna High Court CWJC No.10094 of 2019 dt.20-01-2025
7/9of illegal gratification, and subsequent release of
the accused persons with the illicit consignment of
liquor.
12. Reliance on the confessional statement
of accused Shambhu Thathera, the allegations
stated in the FIR, seizure of the alleged illegal
gratification from Havildar Lalan Ram and
statement of police officials/personnel in support
of the factum of lodging of the FIR, recording of
confessional statement of accused Shambhu
Thathera, at best, are proof of the facts leading to
lodging of the criminal case and not by any stretch
of imagination sufficient to prove the occurrence
as stated in the F.I.R. and bring home the charges
against the petitioner even on preponderance of
probability. The documents forming part of the
criminal investigation relied upon by the Enquiry
Officer cannot be considered to be material to
sustain charges in the departmental proceedings.
Law to this effect by now settled as per decision in
case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) relied upon by
the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
13. The submission of the State counsel
regarding procedure being followed and witnesses
being examined, therefore, is clearly
unsustainable. As noted above, not a single
witness competent to depose in respect of any fact
forming part of the allegation against the petitioner
in the charge memo has been examined. All the
witnesses, who have been examined, are, at best,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10094 of 2019 dt.20-01-2025
8/9witness to the lodging of the criminal case after
the accused Shambhu Thathera had been
apprehended in the Railway yard. The nine
witnesses, who have been examined, are not
witnesses to the events, prior to arrest of accused
Shambhu Thathera, i.e. in the night of 26-12-2016
at the barrack or in the morning of 27-12- 2016
when it is alleged that illegal gratification was
demanded in presence of the petitioner, accepted
and after accepting the illegal gratification the
accused Shambhu Thathera and Yatish Kumar
released along with consignment of illicit liquor.
Even on preponderance of probability it cannot be
concluded that based on depositions of these nine
witnesses, or material forming part of the criminal
investigation arising out of Kiul Rail P.S. Case No.
247 of 2016, the charges have been proved.”
9. The observation and finding of the learned Court,
afore-noted, finally led to hold that the conclusion of the
disciplinary authority based on the depositions of the nine
witnesses and documents forming part of criminal investigation
is unsustainable.
10. Faced with the aforesaid facts and the settled
position; and on being found the case of the petitioner to be
identically situated as that of Rajpati Shekhar @ Constable 06
Rajpati Shekhar, this Court is left with no option but to set aside
Patna High Court CWJC No.10094 of 2019 dt.20-01-2025
9/9
the order of dismissal as contained in Memo No. 740 dated
12.07.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Rail Police,
Jamalpur and the order of the appellate authority contained in
Memo No. 1/GO dated 02.01.2019 issued by the Deputy
Inspector General of Police (Railway) Patna as also the entire
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in order to
uphold uniformity.
10. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with
all consequential benefit(s).
11. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 24-01-2025 Transmission Date
[ad_1]
Source link