NARENDRA KUMAR NAGANBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this petition under Articles 14,16 & 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner - Narendra Kumar M. Solanki has brought under challenge the impugned Order dated 6-10-1987, removing him from service, passed by the Director General of Police, Ahemdabad - Respondent No. 2 herein, interalia praying for - (i) Quashing and setting aside the same; and (ii) directing the respondents to : (a) reinstate him in service with continuity of service; (b) pay him full back-wages; and (c) give him all the consequential benefits falling due.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was recruited as an Unarmed Police Constable by District Superintendent of Police, Kheda, the Respondent No. 3 herein, and accordingly joined the service on 28-12-1981. While joining the service, petitioner was required to fill up "Recruit Roll" [Shakh-Patra], wherein some personal details were required to given. Accordingly, in Column No. 10 of the said 'Recruit Roll' the petitioner was required to state details about the fact as to whether in past he was prosecuted for any criminal offences, and if yes, what was the out-come of the same ? Thus, while filling-up the said 'Recruit-Roll', admittedly, though the petitioner was prosecuted for three criminal offences, he has stated "No" against the said Column No. 10. According to the petitioner, since in all these cases, he was falsely implicated and ultimately, was given clean bill, he filled in Column No. 10 in the said 'Recruit-Roll' stating "No" against it. This defence version has also been accepted by the Enquiry Officer ** ** ** in his report. Thereafter, on joining the service, petitioner was sent for training and on completion of the same, he was appointed as an Un-armed Police Constable. However, all of a sudden, the services of petitioner came to be terminated by an Order dated 30-7-1982 passed by D.S.P., Kheda - Respondent No. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the imp ugned order terminating his services, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police, Ahmedabad - Respondent No. 2 herein, which ultimately came to bo dismissed, as a result of which, petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition before this Court, the same being Special Civil Application No. 1362 of 1982. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court [Coram : A.M. Ahmedi, J.] by the judgment and order dated 15-11-1983 and the petitioner was reinstated in service with all the benefits due. While allowing the said petition, this Court [Coram : A.M Ahmedi, J.] observed that it will be open to the department to initiate an inquiry in accordance with law, if so advised. Accordingly, petitioner was reinstated in service and thereafter, a chargesheet dated 20-3-1984 was served upon the petitioner wherein it was alleged that though the petitioner was involved in three Criminal Cases, before his recruitment as an Unarmed Police Constable, and yet he had written 'NO' against Column No. 10 of the 'Recruit-Roll' on 28- 12-1981, while joining the service, and thereby suppressing material facts have made false statement. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said Chargesheet and thereafter an inquiry was held against him by Dy. S.P., Kheda. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report to the Respondent No. 3, the relevant part of which reads as under:- The witness Home Police Inspector Mr. K.M.Bhatt has produced the copies of the complaints of Nadiad Town Police Station C.R. No. 410/76, 266/77 and Sojitra Police Station CJR. No. 49/81, in which the name of the delinquent has been shown as an accused. On that basis, it transpires that the delinquent has been involved in the aforesaid three offences. While the delinquent has stated in the Sakh Patra that he is not involved in any offence inspite of having been involved in the offence. The Home Police Inspector Mr. Bhatt has made clarification during his cross-examination that the delinquent is not a person of criminal mentality. Out of the complaints filed against him, the complaint of Nadiad Town C.R No. 401/76 was filed by the father of the delinquent regarding the theft of thread, in which the accused had given the name of the delinquent with a view to involve the son of the complainant. That case was tried by the Court and the delinquent was acquitted. Similarly, in the complaints of Nadiad Town C.R No. 966/77, his neighbours had given name of the delinquent falsely in connection with theft of the cycle. The said complaint was filed against the delinquent for some internal reasons, in which compromise was made subsequently. It transpires from the deposition of this witness that three complaints were filed against the delinquent as stated above. But it is to be decided that, according to deposition, whether the complaints have been filed in respect of Criminal Act or for any other reasons. According to the deposition of this witness, the complaints appears to have been filed because of internal dispute in the family. So the delinquent does not seem to be having criminal mind. It is an undisputed fact that the delinquent has denied of having been involved in any offence in Column No. 10 of Sakh Patra. He appears to have written 'NO' due to ignorance because of the fact that he was never convicted in any criminal case and the complaints were filed against him because of the family disputes. The charge levelled against the delinquent is proved as discussed above. But the delinquent does not seem to be having criminal mind. A,B,C, files are enclosed herewith. Deputy Police Officer Departmental Inquiry, Kheda [North Division] Thereafter, the Respondent No. 3 issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 13-4-1984 to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service. The Respondent No. 3 thereafter without taking into consideration the report of Inquiry Officer, dismissed the petitioner from service by an Order dated 30-1-1985. The said Order was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gandhinagar, who by an order dated 4-10-1985 modified the order of punishment viz., from that of dismissal to removal. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 7-12-1985 before the Director Genaral of Police, who by an Order dated 6-10--1987 dismissed the same and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police., This was once again further challenged by way of Revision Application on 12-11- 1987 before the State Government, which came to be dismissed on 4-10-1989 after filing of the present petition. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) While challenging the impugned order, Mr. B.B. Naik, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised following three contentions :-