Disciplinary Authority's Order Imposing Both Major & Minor Penalties Together Unsustainable: Patna High Court
The application before the Patna High Court was filed challenging the punishment order, by which the petitioner’s five increments were withheld with cumulative effect.
While modifying an order of punishment imposed upon a Police Officer, the Patna High Court has held that the disciplinary authority cannot impose both major and minor penalties together.
The application before the High Court was filed challenging the punishment order, by which the petitioner’s five increments were withheld with cumulative effect. There was also a prohibition on the promotion for five years from the due date of promotion.
The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar held, “In the present case also, the disciplinary authority vide impugned order has imposed both major and minor penalties together, which is impressible and unsustainable in view of the afore-quoted judgment. Even, a perusal of the concurrence given by the Bihar Public Service Commission on the proposed punishment, it appears that though the Commission has mentioned about the major and minor punishment but has not given any reason for concurring with the proposed punishment which is an amalgamation of both major and minor punishment.”
Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. S.C. Parashar (2006).
Senior Advocate Y.V. Giri represented the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General P.K. Verma represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner joined the Bihar Police Service as Dy.S.P. after qualifying the 45th BPSC combined competitive examination and was posted as Sub-Division Police Officer, wherein he was entrusted with the supplementary investigation. In the aforesaid criminal case, the allegation of overloading and illegal mining was levelled against the accused persons. During a raid conducted, several bank account passbooks, cash and other articles were seized. The petitioner, while conducting the supplementary investigation, submitted a “No Objection Certificate” to the concerned trial court for de-freezing the bank accounts of the accused person. It was alleged that the petitioner failed to take appropriate steps to confiscate the illegal amount and, on the other hand, issued an NOC, which led to the release of the aforesaid funds. On the allegation of such irregularities, dereliction of duty and suspicious conduct, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.
The impugned order of punishment was issued by the disciplinary authority, whereby the punishment of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect, along with a prohibition on promotion for five years from the due date of promotion, was imposed upon the petitioner. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred a review, which came to be rejected vide the impugned order.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the main allegation against the petitioner was of not conducting the supplementary investigation properly and of submitting a “No Objection Certificate” to the concerned trial Court for de-freezing the bank accounts of the accused persons without obtaining prior permission/order from his superior officers and a copy of the same was also sent by him to the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank.
Being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the punishment order was passed, inflicting major and minor punishment, i.e. withholding of five increments with cumulative effect and prohibition on promotion for five years from the due date of promotion. The Bench found substance in the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that both major and minor punishment can’t be packaged into one and imposed simultaneously by one order.
The Bench thus held that the impugned order of punishment was not sustainable. “Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment dated 22.12.2022, is modified to the extent that the major punishment i.e. withholding of five increments with cumulative Patna High Court effect shall be sustained in view of the gravity of charge against the petitioner and the minor punishment i.e. prohibition on promotion for five years from the due date is hereby quashed and set aside", it ordered.
Cause Title: Manoj Kumar Sudhanshu v. The State of Bihar (Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4443 of 2023)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Y.V. Giri, Advocates Rohit Kumar, Manish Kumar, Priti Kumari
Respondent: AAG-3 K. Verma, A.C. to AAG-3 Suman Kumar Jha