IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6684 of 2008 Ram Sarekh Rai, son of Late Hrdidwar Rai, resident of village- Noorchack, P.O. Chiksi, P.S. Singhauri, District Patna Versus 1. The State of Bihar Through Secretary Deptt. of Home, State of Bihar Patna. 2. The Inspector General of Bihar, Patna Division- Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patna Div. Patna. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District Patna ----------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Mahashwets Chaterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha A.C. to A.A.G.-4 2. 23.06.2010 There are many questions of law, which have been raised in the present writ application but all may not be answered since one of the primary issue raised in the present writ application may be good enough for adjudication. The things as it stands today is that the petitioner who happened to be a constable in the Bihar Police came to be dismissed from service in exercise of powers invoked under Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The initial order of dismissal has been passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna and is dated 19.06.2007, which is Annexure-2 - 2 - to the writ application. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed vide order dated 4.1.2008 contained in Annexure-3 and after much delay and on intervention of the Court, memorial of the petitioner too was dismissed vide order dated 8.4.2008 contained in Annexure 7. The short facts are that the petitioner was posted at Barh in the year 2004 and was on official duty to deliver certain Dak (official letters) to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police at Patna. He came to Patna on 26.10.2004, delivered the official documents and letters and is stated to have gone to the Patna Junction to catch the train back to Barh. A complaint was lodged by one Mukesh Kumar that the petitioner asked him to come to an isolated place threatened him with dire consonance and forcibly took money out of his pocket. That was with regard to the first incidence of misconduct or indiscretion committed by the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner got away lightly on that incidence. It is the second incidence some time in the year 2007 which took a turn for the worst, so the present case. In this case, the petitioner was involved in an incidence relating - 3 - to one Mr. Jwala Kumar, he tried to snatch money from him near Veena Cinema on 27.5.2007 for which Kotwali P.S. case No. 233 of 2009 was registered under Section 384 I.P.C. The respondent authorities looking at the past allegation and the present act of the petitioner decided to take action against him even departmentally. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court after due trial vide judgment dated 30.7.2008. So far as the disciplinary authority and action is concerned the Senior Superintendent of Police in his wisdom opined that conduct and act of the petitioner did not require any indulgence and mercy and, therefore, without holding any departmental inquiry and by invoking the powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India dismissed the petitioner from service. As already noted above, the appeal and memorial too were also dismissed. The said orders are under challenge in the present writ application. Submission on behalf of the petitioner made at the bar is that the law on the issue is well settled, whether be the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Dispensing with an enquiry and dismissal of a permanent employee is not to - 4 - be resorted as a matter of course, there has to be sufficient reasons and materials which will justify such an extreme action. If the reasons are not of the kind which justifies invocation of powers under Article 311(2)(b), then the whole proceedings would require to be interfered. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a recent decision rendered in the case of Shukdeo Ojha vs. The State of Bihar and others 2010 (2) PLJR 96. This decision has been relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel not because it is a decision of this Court but because it is based on series of ratios of different cases which have been rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in such a situation. The sum essence of the ratio of the decisions is that dispensing with an enquiry is not a rule but an exception. It is to be resorted to in a rarest of rare case and unless it is practicably impossible to hold an inquiry into the misconduct alleged against the delinquent. Article 311(2)(b) is not to be invoked or applied in every situation merely because the disciplinary authority feels that holding of an enquiry may be time taking or cumbersome. Learned counsel for the State submits that the conduct of the petitioner coming from a disciplined force and - 5 - his repeated acts of breaking law and harassing innocent citizens compelled the authority to act in the manner. They were of the considered opinion that continuance of the petitioner in the service would be a blot to the police force and detrimental to its image. If the allegations made against the petitioner are prima facie correct then they surely are serious in nature. The allegations however are not of the kind where it was impossible or impracticable to hold an enquiry. It was not one of those cases where holding an enquiry would have been detrimental to the interest or the security of the State. In a case like this it was necessary to hold and conclude the enquiry within a time frame and to pass appropriate orders against the delinquent. In the opinion of the Court the respondent authorities have only taken an easy way out by getting rid of the services of the petitioner. In the given facts and in the face of the decision which has been cited on behalf of the petitioner the ratio of the same is applicable to the present case, in the absence of any cogent explanation or reasons having been as offered by the State even here for invoking of powers under Article - 6 - 311(2)(b), the petitioner has made out a case for interference. The impugned order contained in Annexure 2, 3 and 7 are hereby quashed. The writ application is allowed. The respondent authorities are given freedom to hold a fresh enquiry against the petitioner by giving him an opportunity and then pass appropriate order/orders with regard to the charges, which may be brought against him for his acts of omission and commission committed by him. It will in the interest of the State to expedite the enquiry and complete it within a reasonable time frame since the matter relates to 2004. S.S. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)