"Territorial Responsibility" Cannot Be Ipso Facto Equated With Deemed Guilt: Patna High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Police Officer
The High Court held that disciplinary action against a public servant cannot be founded on presumed or deemed guilt arising solely from territorial responsibility, and that punishment imposed without cogent material establishing negligence, connivance, or complicity is unsustainable in service law.
The Patna High Court has held that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial powers cannot impose or enhance disciplinary punishment on a public servant based on presumed guilt or territorial responsibility, in the absence of cogent material establishing direct negligence or involvement.
The High Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the imposition of punishment and its subsequent enhancement against a police officer in connection with the recovery of illicit liquor from within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station where he was posted.
The matter was decided by Justice Sandeep Kumar, who observed that “territorial responsibility cannot be ipso facto equated with strict liability or deemed guilt, in the absence of negligence or laxity being deliberate, which is evidenced based on cogent materials available on record”.
The petitioner was represented by Vinay Ranjan, Advocate, while the State was represented by P.K. Verma, Additional Advocate General-III.
Background
The petitioner was serving as a police officer and was posted as Station House Officer of a police station in the State of Bihar. During his tenure, illicit liquor was recovered from areas falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the said police station, leading to the initiation of departmental proceedings against him.
The charge against the petitioner was premised on alleged failure in supervision and enforcement of prohibition laws, primarily on the basis that the recovery occurred within his territorial jurisdiction. No specific allegation of direct involvement, connivance or facilitation was attributed to him.
A departmental enquiry culminated in an order imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect. During the pendency of the petitioner’s appeal, the Director General of Police exercised suo motu revisional powers and enhanced the punishment substantially.
Aggrieved by both the original punishment and the enhanced penalty, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The Patna High Court first examined the basis on which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and noted that the action against the petitioner was founded on a presumption that recovery of illicit liquor within the jurisdiction of a police station ipso facto established culpability of the officer-in-charge. The Court observed that such a presumption proceeds on a pre-determined mindset and reverses the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings.
Relying upon earlier decisions of coordinate Benches dealing with identical departmental instructions, the Court held that an “administrative authority acting in the capacity of a quasi-judicial authority cannot enter and undertake a disciplinary proceeding imposing punishment, much less, revise and substitute it with a much harsher punishment with a predetermined mindset”.
The Court emphasised that territorial responsibility cannot be equated with strict liability. While a public servant is required to discharge duties diligently, the Court held that “the concept of strict liability by virtue of ‘deemed guilt’ of a public servant in the absence of any cogent material establishing direct connivance, complicity, negligence or involvement is totally alien to the service jurisprudence.”
On the facts of the matter, the Court noted that the enquiry record did not disclose any material establishing that the petitioner knew of, participated in, or facilitated the illicit activity. The witnesses examined merely proved formal documents and signatures, without attributing any specific act or omission to the petitioner.
The Court further scrutinised the exercise of suo motu revisional powers by the Director General of Police. It held that enhancement of punishment, without any additional material and solely on the same presumptive reasoning, was arbitrary, stating that “there are no materials on record that could have justified the imposition of the punishment, much less, enhancement of the punishment”.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were vitiated by a pre-determined approach and the absence of cogent material establishing misconduct. Consequently, both the punishment order and the revisional order were quashed.
The writ petition was allowed accordingly.
Cause Title: Bhola Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Others
Appearances
Petitioner: Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
Respondents: P.K. Verma, AAG-III, assisted by Suman Kumar Jha, Assisting Counsel