ARJUNLAL DEWANGAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of orders of penalty passed on 28032006 as also dismissal of appeal and mercy appeal on 16052007.

(2.) Facts necessary for decision of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Constable in Police Station Supela, Bhilai on the allegation of having taken bribe, the petitioner was suspended on 31.12.2004. Criminal case was also registered and departmental enquiry was opened by issuance of charge sheet on 28.01.2005. The petitioner submitted his reply on 08.03.2005 and denied allegations stating that he had never gone to the complainant nor demanded bribe. Reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and the disciplinary authority appointed Inquiry Officer Presenting Officer. During enquiry, the prosecution examined number of witnesses. The petitioner and other codelinquent employees were granted opportunity to lead defence witness and as many as 10 witnesses were examined. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted the enquiry report, in which, the charges were found proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the enquiry report, copy of which was also supplied to the petitioner, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed. The appeal and mercy appeal were also dismissed, giving rise to the instant petition.

(3.) Assailing correctness and validity of the departmental enquiry proceedings and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, learned counsel for the petitioner argued in extenso that the enquiry is vitiated, due to violation of principles of natural justice in as much as, various relevant informations and documents which were relied upon by the prosecution or necessary for effective defence of the petitioner were not supplied, despite repeated demands made through various applications filed along with the petition as Annexure P8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the CD and photographs were not supplied to the petitioner nor the copy of complaint dated 30.12.2004 submitted by the complainant in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau. It is submitted that in order to establish and prove his defence that the petitioner was not accompanied with codelinquent employee Nirbhay Singh on 28.12.2004, relevant entries of Rojnamchasanha maintained in the Police Station Supela, were also demanded, but these documents were also not supplied to the petitioner. For the very purpose, the petitioner also sought copies of Incoming and Outgoing Entries Register of the Police Station, but that document was not supplied to the petitioner. Non supply of those very documents seriously prejudiced the petitioner in his effective defence that the petitioner had neither gone to the complainant along with Nirbhay Singh nor demanded any bribe.