Writ Court Can't Sit In Appeal Over Departmental Proceedings, Particularly When There Are Concurrent Findings On Charge: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has recently reiterated that the writ court does not sit in appeal against the orders passed in departmental proceedings, particularly when there are concurrent findings concerning the proved charges.

Referring to the precedent in  Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary noted,

"This Court finds that in the instant case the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality or errors of law/ procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice in the enquiry proceedings or in findings recorded by the disciplinary authority based on the enquiry report. The appellate Court affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority and found that no ground for interference was called for in the findings expressed by the disciplinary authority."

Background

In the petitioner's case, while he was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police since 1994, in 2008 a departmental proceeding was initiated against him by the Superintendent of Police on the charges of illegal custody of two people while investigating a case; however, the supposed victims of the harassment, as named, denied the allegation. Moreover, even in the report of the conducting officer, it was clearly stated that the victim-witness does not support the allegations against the petitioner. However, the conducting officer found the petitioner guilty of the allegations so leveled despite having recorded so.

The petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the report of the conducting officer, the Superintendent of Police passed an order for punishment without scrutinizing the findings, in violation of Rule 832 of the Police Manual and Section 7 of the Police Act, the punishment of withholding increment was inflicted on the petitioner. The petitioner also contended that even the appellate authority had not considered these aspects.

Advocate Rahul Saboo, appearing for the respondent-state, referred to the case of Pravin Kumar v. Union of India to argue that the scope of judicial review is very limited, and the findings of both the authorities are conducted concerning the guilt of the petitioner. It was also argued that the petitioner has not pointed out any illegality or irregularity, so far as the procedural aspect is concerned, and there is no scope for entering into the merits of the case by re-appreciating the materials on record produced before the inquiry officer and considered by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority.

Findings of the Court

In view of the limited jurisdiction of judicial review in the matter of departmental proceedings, the Court said that it cannot not sit in appeal against the findings of the disciplinary proceedings and no ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

On the question of punishment of withholding increment under the Police Manual and Act, the Court noted that,

"Section 7 of the Police Act clearly provides that subject to the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution and to such Rules as the State Government may from time to time frame, the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General, Assistant Inspector General, District Superintendents of Police may at any time dismiss, suspend or reduce any police-officer of the subordinate ranks, whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same and may, interalia, impose fine of any amount not exceeding one month's pay."

The Court noted that under Rule 824 of the Police Manual, one of the punishments which can be inflicted departmentally on a police officer of below the rank of Inspector is forfeiture of last increment(s) or future increment(s). The said rule provides that every order reducing an officer to a lower post or to a lower stage in his time scale, or withholding an increment, shall state the period for which it shall be effective. It observed,

"In the present case punishment of withholding of six months' increments has been imposed clearly indicating that it will have effect in his future which essentially means for his whole service period. Considering Section 7 of the Police Act read with Rules 824 and 832 under Chapter-25 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or impropriety in the punishment imposed upon the petitioner."

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 13

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order