No Deemed Guilt In Service Law: Patna High Court Quashes Punishment Of Police Officer For Alleged Failure To Collect Intelligence On Illicit Liquor
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Patna Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar allowed a writ petition by a police officer and quashed the disciplinary order imposing stoppage of two salary increments, as well as the later revisional order that enhanced the penalty by reverting his pay for five years, debarring him from being posted as station house officer for 10 years, and restricting him to subsistence allowance during suspension. The Court observed that service law does not recognise any notion of “deemed” or presumed guilt solely on territorial responsibility. The dispute arose after the Excise Department seized about 4,767.22 litres of illicit liquor near the Sursand Police Station in Sitamarhi, leading to allegations that the officer failed to collect intelligence and enforce prohibition laws.
The writ petition was filed by a police officer challenging disciplinary action arising out of the seizure of approximately 4767.22 litres of illicit liquor from the vicinity of a police station where he was posted as Station House Officer. Following the seizure by the Excise Department’s A.L.T.F., a criminal case under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Bihar Excise Act was registered. On the basis of the recovery, the petitioner was placed under suspension and subjected to departmental proceedings on the allegation that he failed to gather intelligence and effectively implement the prohibition law.
A memorandum of charges was issued, to which the petitioner submitted his replies. After an enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the Director General of Police exercised revisional powers under the Bihar Police Manual, set aside the original punishment, and enhanced it by reverting the petitioner to a lower pay scale for five years, debarring him from being posted as Station House Officer for ten years, and restricting his entitlement during suspension to subsistence allowance. The petitioner assailed both the original punishment and the enhanced penalty on the grounds of lack of evidence, procedural infirmities, and illegality in the exercise of revisional powers.
The Court observed that the disciplinary action could not proceed on an assumption of culpability merely because the seizure occurred within the territorial limits of the police station, and recorded that: “The concept of strict liability by virtue of ‘deemed guilt’ of a public servant in absence of any cogent material establishing direct connivance, complicity, negligence or involvement is totally alien to the service jurisprudence.” It further stated that: “territorial responsibility can not be ipso facto equated with strict liability or deemed guilt, in absence of negligence or laxity being deliberate, which is evidenced based on cogent materials available on record.”
On the evidentiary basis of the departmental enquiry, the Court recorded that: “In the disciplinary proceedings, only two formal witnesses have been examined who have merely proved the signatures of the senior police officers.” It noted that the documents relied upon comprised “the F.I.R lodged by the petitioner himself and the order of suspension and its communication” and that “the only thread against the petitioner remains the fact that huge recovery was made from the jurisdiction of police station of which the petitioner was the in-charge.” The Court stated that: “It is not discernible as to how these documents establish the guilt of the petitioner so far as his involvement / connivance or his failure to gather police intelligence is concerned.”
The Court observed that the enquiry record did not disclose material demonstrating negligence attributable to the petitioner, noting: “There is not a single witness to say as to how the petitioner may be said to have acted negligently… Not a single example has been cited in course of enquiry to demonstrate that during the period of service of the petitioner, repeated recoveries were made from the same area.”
On the effect of the executive directions forming the backdrop of the proceeding, the Court recorded that the stipulation in the concerned letter “assumes and pre-judges the guilt against the Station House Officer and Chowkidar even before framing of charge and conduct of an independent enquiry. This has no sanction of law.”
On fairness and the manner in which the authorities approached the matter, the Court stated that: “the authorities had pre-determined to impose penalty on the petitioner and proceeded to hold quasi judicial inquiry giving the post-decisional opportunity of hearing which does not sub serve the rule of natural justice and is contrary to the principle of fair play.” It recorded that: “The authority who embarks upon a post decisional hearing will naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation at such a post-decisional opportunity.”
Finally, while examining the revisional enhancement, the Court observed that: “there are no materials on record that could have justified the imposition of the punishment, much less, enhancement of the punishment.”
The Court directed: “Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders contained in memo no.731 dated 16.06.2021 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, by which punishment of stoppage of increment of salary for two years with non-cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner, … are quashed and set aside. The order as contained in memo no.558, dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, … are quashed and set aside.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3; Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C.
Case Title: Bhola Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7478 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sandeep Kumar
