IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14427 of 2005 Nawal Kishore Yadav, son of late Ishwar Mahto, resident of village – Pain, P S – Sultanganj, District – Bhagalpur .................. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The State of Jharkhand. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Dy. Inspector General of Police, Kodarma, Hazaribagh Range. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Kodarma, Jharkhand. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Munger. .......... Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ebrahim Kabir. For the State of Bihar : Mr. Utsav Kumar, AC to SC-10. For the State of Jharkhand: Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee. ----- 05. 25.11.2011 Petitioner was appointed as a constable in the district of Kodarma on 12.7.1998. For an indiscretion committed by him, while being posted at the residence of the Superintendent of Police, he came to be proceeded departmentally. Allegation is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. The gist of the allegation is that on 8.4.1999 petitioner was assigned guard duty at the residence of the Superintendent of Police but instead of being on duty, he was found chopping wood for preparing his supper. When this was objected to by the Incharge Hawildar and even chided for not being on duty, petitioner is supposed to have chased the Incharge Hawildar with kitchen knife and probably he pulled out a rifle and threatened him. He is supposed to have used even abusive language against his superior i.e. Hawildar. In the departmental proceeding petitioner did try to offer explanations and one of his defence was that a simple incident was blown out of proportion and the incident of the kind 2 did not happen in the manner in which it has been described in the chargesheet. However, enquiry officer did find the petitioner guilty of the charge and the disciplinary authority decided to dismiss him from service. The initial order of dismissal came to be passed on 6.3.2002 by the Superintendent of Police, Kodarma but since the petitioner in the meantime had already crossed over on the basis of a transfer order into the State of Bihar, a follow up order based on the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kodarma came to be passed in terms of Annexure-6. One contention of the petitioner is that because of the order of transfer from Kodarma to Munger district he was prevented from effectively defending himself in the departmental proceeding, which continued at Kodarma. That was one of the reason why petitioner did not put up an effective defence including either demolishing the findings given by the enquiry officer based on the statements or could put up any defence by way of witness which he could produce. He did tender apology for any omission or any indiscretion on his part but despite the same the authorities decided to impose ultimate punishment of dismissal not taking into consideration that there has been no reflection of any misdemeanour in the service book of the petitioner prior to the said incident. Besides other contentions which may not be required to really entertained or gone into, one aspect however may 3 require consideration is that this seems to be the first omission of the kind alleged against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has a history of bad conduct over the period he had been in service and for the very first indiscretion final punishment of dismissal has been awarded. This Court has already held in couple of cases that order of dismissal against a Government servant is akin to passing of a death sentence against an accused, which ought to be passed only in exceptional circumstance if materials and allegations are of the kinds which are rather serious. The Court is not in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there was no occasion to proceed against the petitioner because the charge, if read in its entirety, does not reflect a good conduct on behalf of the petitioner especially when he is supposed to have come from a disciplined force. But then it is also a fact the petitioner has suffered because of that indiscretion as not only he is on the road but even his family member is paying a price for the same. In totality therefore, the Court is of the opinion that petitioner’s dismissal with the set of allegations brought against him is too harsh and violates the principles of proportionality and requires reconsideration since petitioner had put in just about a year or a year and half before the incidence. He must be a changed person after all the years of suffering and introspection. 4 In the totality therefore, the order of dismissal contained in Annexure-5 as well as Annexure-6 is quashed as being disproportionate. Let the petitioner be reinstated in service without benefit of any kind by way of payment of salary etc. for the period he was dismissed from service till the period he would be reinstated. In addition to that, it is clarified that this period may be considered for the purposes of retiral dues and other benefits provided petitioner does not fall foul of law a second time over during the subsisting period of his service. Writ is allowed to the extent indicated above. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)