MUDABHAI CHANDUBHAI BARIA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the demand of Rs.50,062.82.00 by the respondent upon the petitioner. The petitioner, a Police Inspector, admittedly lost his service revolver with six cartridges on account of theft committed at his house on 04.11.1997. The petitioner is stated to have filed an FIR on 05.11.1997 pursuant to which, after investigation 'A' Summary Report is stated to have been filed on 11.03.1998. After that, petitioner had submitted detailed representations to the respondents and even filed a Civil Suit challenging the notices of recovery. But, he appears to have not pursued that remedy. The petitioner has also made inquiries about original cost and market price of the revolver till he retired on 31.05.2000 and upon his retirement, his retirement benefits were withheld when he appears to have approached this Court.

(2.) BY filing an affidavit of Deputy Administrative Officer in the Office of Director General and Inspector General of Police, it is stated that valuation of the arm lost was made by calling for an opinion from the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur and in absence of valuation report of 0.38 caliber revolver, comparative value of 0.32 caliber revolver valued at Rs.63,457.00 was considered by the Government. Also considering the year of manufacture as well as other relevant factors, the value of other revolver which was lost by the petitioner was fixed at Rs.50,000.00. The respondents have relied upon a circular dated 07.05.1999 of Office of Director General of Police reminding the Police Officers about their duty to properly preserve and usually carry with themselves the gun provided to them. It is also clearly stipulated therein that, leaving the gun at home in a cupboard would not be treated as a safe custody and in case of loss or theft of such gun, Rs.50,000.00 shall be recovered from the officer concerned. It is, further stated on affidavit of Deputy Administrative Officer, that the service revolver was stolen due to negligence of the petitioner and rules required recovery of the value thereof. Therefore, D.S.P., Gandhinagar had, vide letter dated 25.09.2000, directed the petitioner to deposit that amount within seven days in order to proceed with determination of his entitlement to the retirement benefits. As the petitioner did not pay the Government dues, the procedure for pensions case of the petitioner was delayed and the D.S.P., Gandhinagar, was asked to send a proposal for approving provisional pension. When the petitioner was informed about the provisional pension, the petitioner had, vide letter dated 18.07.2000, informed that he does not want provisional pension or any other benefits. It is contended in the affidavit that it is not important when and at what amount the Government purchased the said revolver, but, the Government had to consider that it has to purchase another revolver in place of the same and how much amount they will have to spend.

(3.) THE relevant facts required to be noted are that, admittedly, the petitioner was entrusted with an official revolver and it was lost by him without a trace for which only proceedings for recovery of value of the gun were initiated and not any proceedings for punishing the petitioner for any misconduct. Secondly, the petitioner had preferred a Civil Suit wherein evidence on the factual issues could have been led, but, that appropriate alternative remedy appears to have not been pursued. Under the circumstances, since the liability to repay the value of the gun could not be seriously disputed and in absence of any material to adjudicate on the amount which should be recovered from the petitioner and in view of the Circular, as aforesaid, meant for uniform application in all such cases, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is not required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.