Surendra Prasad Shukla vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors

Surendra Prasad Shukla ... Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents

O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal by way of special leave under

Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated

09.06.2008 of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand

High Court in L.P.A. No. 176 of 2008 (for short `the

impugned order').

3. The facts very briefly are that the appellant was

recruited as a Constable in the Bihar State Police on

07.08.1971 and he was later on promoted to the post

of Head Constable (Hawaldar). On 04.07.2004, a

complaint was lodged in the Muzaffarpur Sadar Police

2

Station that three unknown persons had snatched a

car, which was registered as Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S.

Case No. 139 of 2004 under Section 392 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short `the I.P.C.'). The police recovered

the stolen car on 13.07.2004 from the government

quarters occupied by the appellant and arrested the son

of the appellant, Raju Shukla @ Rajiv Shukla alongwith

two others who were involved in the theft of the car.

The appellant was suspended and a memo of charges

was served on him on 20.07.2004 charging him with the

misconduct of negligence, indiscipline, conduct

unbecoming of a police personnel. It was also alleged

that he had harboured the accused Raju Shukla. He

was asked to submit his explanation. The appellant

submitted his reply on 26.07.2004 to the

Superintendent of Police, Purvi Singhbhoom,

Jamshedpur (for short the `disciplinary authority')

stating inter alia that in the evening of 12.07.2004 he

had been to Tulailadugri T.O.P. for duty and he was

patrolling in that area the whole night and that when he

returned to his government quarters in the morning

3

around 6:15 a.m. on 13.07.2004, he saw the police of

Muzaffarpur Sadar Police Station at his government

quarters, who had arrested his son alongwith two

others, and had seized the stolen Matiz car. He also

stated in his reply that he did not get any time to

question his son and that he had no idea that his son

was involved in the crime. The enquiry officer then

carried out the enquiry and submitted his report

holding the appellant guilty of the charges and the

disciplinary authority after considering enquiry report

took the view that in the circumstances it was not

reasonable that the appellant should serve the police

force and passed an order of dismissal against him. The

appellant carried an appeal to the Deputy Inspector

General, Singhbhoom, but the appeal was dismissed.

Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision before the

Inspector General of Police, but the same was also

rejected.

4. The appellant then filed Writ Petition (s) No. 6728

of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the

Jharkhand High Court challenging his dismissal from

4

service. The learned Single Judge of the High Court

dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated 30.04.2008.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed L.P.A. No. 176 of 2008 and

the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the

L.P.A. by the impugned order. When the Special Leave

Petition was heard on 17.10.2008, this Court issued

notice to the respondent to show-cause why the

punishment of dismissal should not be altered to

compulsory retirement. In response to the notice,

respondent no.4 has appeared and filed his counter

affidavit and has contended that the appellant is guilty

of keeping the robbed Matiz car and giving shelter to the

accused persons in his house and has not informed the

matter to the higher authorities and that the conduct of

the appellant has tarnished the image of the police force

and that the punishment of dismissal should not be

altered to compulsory retirement.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and we find that the misconduct alleged against the

appellant was that he had harboured the accused Raju

Shukla in the government quarters occupied by him

5

and the stolen car was recovered from the yard in front

of the government quarters. The enquiry officer has

recorded a finding that the appellant was guilty of the

misconduct. The disciplinary authority accepted the

finding of the enquiry officer and was of the view that

the appellant should not any longer serve the police

force and dismissed him from service and the appellate

authority and the revisional authority have agreed with

the disciplinary authority. As the appellant was

working as a Head Constable, it was his duty to enquire

from his son about the car kept in front of the

government quarters occupied by him, and by not

performing this duty he was guilty of negligence. The

fact that the son of the appellant, who was an accused

in an offence under Section 392 IPC, and his

accomplices were found in the government quarters

under the occupation of the appellant and the fact that

the stolen car was also recovered from the yard in front

of his government quarters were sufficient to hold the

appellant guilty of negligence which affected the image

of the police force in the area and for such negligence

6

the authorities were right in taking the view that the

appellant should not be retained in police service.

6. The question which however arises for our decision

is whether such negligence of the appellant was

sufficient for the disciplinary authority to dismiss him

from service. There was no charge against the appellant

that he had in any way aided or abetted the offence

under Section 392 IPC or that he knew that his son had

stolen the car and yet he did not inform the police. The

appellant, as we have held, was guilty of negligence of

not having enquired from his son about the car kept in

front of the government quarters occupied by him. The

appellant had served the government as a Constable

and thereafter as a Head Constable from 07.08.1971 till

he was dismissed from service on 28.02.2005, i.e. for 34

years, and for such long service he had earned pension.

In our considered opinion, the punishment of dismissal

of the appellant from service so as to deprive him of his

pension for the service that he had rendered for long 34

years was shockingly disproportionate to the negligence

proved against him.

7 7. We accordingly, allow this appeal in part and

modify the punishment of dismissal from service to

compulsory retirement. The L.P.A. and the Writ Petition

filed by the appellant before the High Court are allowed

in part. There shall be no order as to costs.

..........................J.

(R.V.

Raveendran)

..........................J.

(A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

September 01, 2011.