Jharkhand HC upholds relief to retired police officer, dismisses DGP’s appeal
Ranchi, June 30: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the DGP and other police officers…
Ranchi, June 30: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the DGP and other police officers against a retired police officer, holding that the departmental proceedings initiated against him were vitiated by violations of the principles of natural justice.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar upheld an earlier order of a Single Judge that had quashed the disciplinary punishment imposed on former Sub-Inspector Umesh Kumar Singh.
The court held that the delinquent officer was neither supplied with a copy of the inquiry report nor served with a second show-cause notice before the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty. It also found that the inquiry officer failed to examine even the complainant during the departmental inquiry.
Background of the case
Umesh Kumar Singh, who joined the police service as a direct recruit Sub-Inspector in 1989, was posted as the Officer-in-Charge of Muffasil Police Station in Chaibasa in 2010 when allegations of bribery surfaced in connection with the release of seized trucks in a criminal case.
Following a complaint, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The disciplinary authority withheld one annual increment, equivalent to two black marks, and denied him salary beyond the subsistence allowance for the suspension period. His appeal and revision were subsequently rejected.
The Single Judge of the High Court, however, quashed the punishment in May 2024, prompting the State to file the present appeal.
Court finds serious procedural lapses
Rejecting the State’s contention that no prejudice had been caused because the officer did not participate in the inquiry, the Division Bench observed that the disciplinary proceedings themselves suffered from fundamental procedural defects.
The Bench noted that no witness was examined during the inquiry and that the complainant, whose allegations formed the basis of the departmental proceedings, was never produced before the inquiry officer. Instead, the findings were recorded solely on the basis of documents placed on record.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, the High Court reiterated that furnishing the inquiry report to a delinquent employee is not an empty formality but an essential safeguard under the principles of natural justice.
‘Grave prejudice’ caused
The court observed that had the inquiry report been supplied, the officer could have pointed out the shortcomings in the inquiry before the disciplinary authority.
“The denial of supply of the copy of the inquiry report, therefore, has caused a grave prejudice to the writ petitioner,” the Bench held.
It further observed that the inquiry officer was duty-bound to examine at least the complainant and held that the failure to do so constituted “an inexcusable lapse” that seriously prejudiced the officer.
The Division Bench noted that Umesh Kumar Singh had already retired from service in 2022. In view of his retirement, it agreed with the Single Judge’s decision not to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry after serving a second show-cause notice.
Finding no merit in the State’s appeal, the Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and upheld the relief granted to the retired police officer.
