TOMAN LAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The challenge in both these petitions is to the suspension orders dated 20th July 2011 (Annexure P-2) and subsequent dismissal orders dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner Toman Lal Sahu was working as Head Constable and petitioner Chandrabhan Singh Bhadoriya was constable and both were posted at Police Station Moudha Para, Raipur, City Kotwali. As per the State, telephonic conversations made in between criminal Chhota Annu @ Anwar and the petitioners were recorded. Against Criminal Anwar, many criminal cases were registered against him. It is alleged that the petitioners being posted as Constable and Head Constable wanted to favour the criminal and the conversation to that effect was recorded and eventually on the basis of CD transcriptions and the CD which were made available to the higher officials of the Police, the petitioners were dismissed from service in exercise of power under Article 311(2) Clause (b), without there being any departmental enquiry. Since the services were terminated on the basis of the telephonic/mobile conversations by invoking power under Article 311(2) Clause (b), as such, no enquiry was held. when the said dismissal order was subject to departmental appeal, the same was also affirmed in appeal. The challenge in these petitions, therefore, is to the dismissal orders passed by the respondent StateRespondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that admittedly before the petitioners were dismissed from services, though the ground was taken that if the departmental enquiry is held, no evidence would be available but the reading of dismissal order would show that the mandatory requirement of Article 311(2)(b) were not satisfied. They would submit that on the basis of source of alleged conversation converted in a Compact Disk (C.D) the petitioners' services were terminated. It was contended that neither the source of CD was disclosed nor the CD was supplied to the petitioners and even it was not revealed in the dismissal order whether the voice which has been relied upon by the State-respondents is that of the petitioners and the accused Anwar. Learned counsel would further submit that even if the State was of the opinion that the voice of conversation is of the petitioners, then it could have been proved by any Forensic expert. They would further submit that when the basic ground on which the dismissal orders were passed is on the telephone conversation tape, such action of State-Respondents cannot be allowed as recording of telephonic conversation offends Article 21 of the Constitution. He placed reliance in People s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) V. Union of India , 1997 AIR(SC) 568 and would submit that in the like nature of the cases in absence of compliance of valid procedure/guidelines, the action of respondents cannot be held statutory and the conversation so recorded cannot be used to dismiss the service as the statutory mandates were not followed. They would further submit that dispensing with the enquiry on the mere recording of conversation will not bring home the requirement. Further reliance is placed in Shyam Lal Sharma V. Union of India , 1987 AIR(SC) 1137