Ajeet Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned Standing Counsel-III (Mines & Geology) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 28.11.2005, whereby, the petitioner has been discharged from the post of Constable No.277 by the order passed in Special Branch Departmental Proceeding No. 10 of 2003 and to reinstate him on the same post. The charge against the petitioner is that while he was posted in Special Branch and was deputed in the security wing and was commanded to perform the security duty of the Minister of Mines and Geology Department, he was involved in selling illegal arms and country made sixer rovolver with 6 live cartridges to one Ram Pujan Singh at Rs.15,000/-, which was seized by the police. This was informed to the police and on the tip off, the petitioner was caught red handed by the raiding party of police. The police also recovered and seized a Government service pistol of 9 mm. with 35 live cartridges, which were issued to him by the Security Section to perform the Government duty. From the aforesaid seized articles, seizure list was prepared in presence of two witnesses and Lalpur P.S. Case No. 11 of 2003 dated 21.01.2003 under Section 25 (1-B) A/26 of the Arms Act has been registered and the petitioner was forwarded to jail custody.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was found guilty and dismissed from the service without following Rules 844 and 847 of the Police Manual. He further submits that criminal case and departmental proceeding should not go side by side as it would cause serious prejudice in defence and as such it is incumbent upon the authorities to stay the departmental proceeding. He relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. Reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and submits that in view of this judgment, departmental proceeding was needed to be stayed.

On the other hand, Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was a police personnel and due to his serious involvement, the image of the police has been tarnished and as such the authority was compelled to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner for his criminal behaviour and indiscipline. He further submits that departmental proceeding was proceeded for which sufficient opportunity to the petitioner was provided to put his defence and finally in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was found guilty and, therefore, impugned order has been passed. Mr. Bakshi further submits that Rules 844 and 847 of the Police Manual is not applicable which provides that the authority shall initiate departmental proceeding of every criminal case in which the police officer is convicted or acquitted or discharged. He further submits that in the case in hand the trial is still pending and as such Rules 844 and 847 of the Police Manual is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submits that Rules 824-A and 827 of the Police Manual provides about the departmental punishment and prosecution and in that view of the matter departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. He relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of SBI v. Neelam Nag reported in (2016) 9 SCC 497.

Paragraphs 13 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:

"13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The only question that arises for consideration, is no more res-integra. It is well-settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straight-jacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case-to-case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in series of decisions.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, we accede to the contention of the appellants that the pendency of the criminal case against the respondent cannot be the sole basis to suspend the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent for an indefinite period; and in larger public interest, the order as passed in Stanzen's case be followed even in the fact situation of the present case, to balance the equities."

In the aforesaid decision, the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and after taking into account the facts, judgment was delivered, wherein, it is held that there is no legal bar to conduct the disciplinary proceeding and criminal trial simultaneously. On this basis, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for this parties, this Court finds that the petitioner is a member of disciplined force and he was caught red handed in selling the arms. The case in hand is fully covered under Rules 824-A and 827 of the Police Manual and is also fully covered to the case of SBI v. Neelam Nag (supra) and as such no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

I.A. No. 120 of 2012 also stands dismissed.