LexRAM TAWEKYA SHARMA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 12 S.C.R. 452 RAM TAWEKYA SHARMA v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5186 of 2008) AUGUST 21, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] Bihar Police Manual; rr. 828, 844, 845, 846 &JB47: C Commission of robbery by police constables - Pending criminal proceedings initiation of departmental proceedings against errant constables - Correctness of - Held: Accused employee informed about non - participation in the departmental proceedings till decision in the criminal D proceedings by the court - Departmental proceedings initiated by authorities in terms of Police Manual - No complaint about defect in enquiry made by accused - High Court has categorically concluded in its findings that full opportunity granted and requisite procedure has been .. 'I!' E complied with by the authorities - Thus, there was no violation of principles of natural justice - Hence, no interference with the findings of the High Court called for - Principles of natural justice - Compliance with. Appellant, police constables allegedly committed F robbery on 12.10.1991, they were chased and apprehended by the locals. They were handed over to -¥ the police and the money was recovered from their . possession. Police registered a Case against them for alleged commission of offences punishable under G Sections· 392 and 411 of the Indian ·Penal Code, 1960 and simultaneously departmental proceedings· were also initi.ated against them. Accused-police constables filed a Writ P~tition challengrng the initiatio.n of the . departmental proceeding; In the meantime the trial court H 452 . RAM TAWEKYA'SHARMA v. STATE OF 453 T BIHAR & ORS. acquitted the appell~nt. However, the departmental A proceedings resulted in termination of services of the appellants. The Writ Petition was disposed of on the ground that the departmental proceeding has since been concluded. Aggrieved, the accused filed further writ -+- petitions, which were disposed of by a common order B r by the High Court upholding order of dismissal of the accused. Another writ petition was filed, in which-~ ~ accused had taken the stand that in terms of Rule 847 of the Bihar Police Manual no departmental proceedings could have been initiated till the time for preferring an appeal expires. The Single J.udge referred the matter to c the Division Bench. Tne Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Rules 845 and 847 of the Bihar Police M_anual D only relate to cases of conviction . .It is significant to note ..,. that the appellant and the two other employees who were proceeded against in departmental proceeding had written to the authorities that they were not participating E in the departmental proceeding, till a decision .is given by the criminal court. They also declined to cross: examine the witnesses produced in the. departmental proceeding. So far as the first writ petition is concerned, the stay order was passed on 6.1.1992 i.e .. ·much after · F 'f when the appellant and the two others had refused to participate in the departmental proceedings. As rightly noted by the High Court, in the earlier Writ petition only two points were urged and no complaint was made of any defect in the enquiry. Therefore, the High Court rightly concluded the stand to be without substance. As G ...... regards Rule 828(b) of the Police Manual, the High Court has categorically concluded that full opportunity was granted to accused and requisite procedure has been complied with, hence there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. [Para 8] [457-GH, 458-A-C] H 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. B 5186 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.l.C. No. 4205 of 1996 P.S. Mishra, Dhruv Kumar Jha, TathagaL H. Vardhan, Upendra Mishra, Ravi C. Prakash ·and C.D. Singh for the Appellant. Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar and Sujoya Bardhan for the C Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 0 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: E Alleging that appellant and his companions
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.