Mangal Kumar Singh @ Mangal Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18798 of 2013 ====================================================== Mangal Kumar Singh @ Mangal Singh Son Of Mijetar Singh Of VillageP.O. Gangahar, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The D.G. Cum I.G. Of Police, Bihar, Patna 3.

The D.I.G. Of Police, B.M.P. Northern Zone, Muzaffarpur 4.

The Commandant, B.M.P. 7, Katihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mrigang Mauli, Sr. Adv Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Madtivkar Mishra, AC to SC-16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20-07-2022 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.

Petitioner, a constable, was proceeded against on the basis of a Charge Memo, dated 25.10.1994. The allegation was that he along with one constable, Satish Kumar Singh, had assaulted two named persons at a tea stall and snatched an amount of Rs. 510/- from the picket of one of these two persons. The same incidence led to lodging of an FIR also.

Pursuant to the proceedings conducted against the petitioner, he has been held to be guilty of the allegations. Charges have been found to be proved and the punishment of dismissal has been imposed on the petitioner by an order dated 30.03.1996 by the Commandant, BMP-7, Katihar.

2/4 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that certain events are very relevant to the petitioner's case. The co-accused, namely, Satish Kumar Singh facing identical allegations, has since been exonerated by the authorities. The petitioner has also been acquitted in the criminal trial arising out of the same set of allegations.

Apart from these two facts, it is further submitted that in the proceedings conducted against the petitioner, the allegations have been held to be proved without any material whatsoever. The finding, as per submission of learned counsel, is unsustainable on the ground of being perverse. In this background, a detailed point wise elaborate review has been preferred by the petitioner (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) on 05.09.2013 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Military Police, North Division, Muzaffarpur.

The learned senior counsel submits that the order passed on the petitioner's review is without considering the petitioner's claim of parity with the co-accused Satish Kumar Singh, who was facing identical charges arising out of the same incidence. Further, the fact of the petitioner's acquittal has also not been considered. In fact, none of the points raised by the petitioner, including the various precedents relied upon by the petitioner in his review application, has been considered by the Reviewing Authority. The

3/4 submission is that the order passed by the Reviewing Authority suffers from non-application of mind and the same is also unsustainable for non-assigning of reasons rendering the entire exercise of review, futile.

Learned State counsel has submitted that petitioner, being a police constable, is facing charges which are unbecoming of a police constable. Proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law.

After hearing the parties, this Court would consider it appropriate to reproduce the order of the Reviewing Authority passed on the petitioner's detail and elaborate review. The relevant extract of the order reads as follows: "मैंन संचचिकका में उपलब्ध अपपील अभ्यकावनदन आररोप प्रदर्श जजाँचि प्रचतिवनदन सकाक्ष्यका कन बयकान एवसं कचणण्डिककावकार चटिप्पणपी कका सूक्ष्मतिकापसूवर्शक अवलरोकन चकयका। अवलरोकनरोपरकान्ति अपचिकारपी दकारका समचपर्शति Acquittal order कन आलरोक में Review अपपील अभ्यकावनदन पर चवचिकार करतिन हए पसूवर्श में चदयन गयन आदनरशांक- 1477 चदनशांक 18.09.1997 करो यथकावति रखतिन हए अपपीलकतिर्ता दकारका समचपर्शति अपपील अभ्यकावनदन करो स्वपीककति करतिका हसूह।" From perusal of the order itself, it is apparent that it shows non-application of mind. None of the points raised by the petitioner in the review appeal has been considered and there is no reason assigned in the order for rejecting the various claims raised by the petitioner, taken note of above. Non-assigning of reasons by the Reviewing Authority has in fact rendered the entire exercise of

4/4 review futile. Order is unsustainable in view of the settled legal position as per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 which has reiterated the requirement of assigning reasons in such order having penal consequences. Considering the settled legal position, the order of the Reviewing Authority, dated 18.09.2020 is unsustainable in law and is quashed.

The Reviewing Authority should consider the petitioner's review afresh and pass reasoned and speaking order considering all the points raised by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.

Writ application is allowed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.08.2022 Transmission Date NA