BAHELIM S SORABKHAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the High Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would be entitled to judicially review and disturb the finding of the fact arrived at, in the first instance by the Disciplinary Authority, and thereafter confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, on the sole ground that the just, reasonable and probable defence of the delinquent indicating that the whole departmental proceedings were maliciously set into motion by a person who was stung and embittered because of the serious allegation of misconduct, consequentially bringing to an end his service career ?"This in short is the question that has been urged before this Court for consideration in the background of the following facts.

(2.) Few relevant facts:- Petitioner - Bahelim S. Sorabkhan was recruited in the Police Department as an Unarmed Police Constable and accordingly was serving on the said post since last many years. Further according to the petitioner, to his utter shock and surprise, on 30-3-1991 he was served with a Chargesheet (Annexure "A") issued by the District Superintendent of Police, Mehsana; Respondent No. 4 herein, inter alia, alleging that on 27-1-1989 at 17-00 hours when he was serving at Bavlu Police Station, he had given filthy abuses to one Un-armed Head Constable -Mr. Kanjibhai Ramjibhai and by this act of insubordination, had committed a misconduct On the basts of the said Chargesheet, the Enquiry Officer - Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kalol, held inquiry and submitted his report dated 28-5-1990. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be given punishment of reduction in pay-scale. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 finally punished the petitioner with reduction in pay-scale ie., from Rs. 870/- to that of Rs. 825/- for two years. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Respondent No. 3 herein, who in his turn of his own issued a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why instead of the punishment of reduction in the pay-scale inflicted by the District Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, he should not be dismissed from service ? This was replied to. However, ultimately by an Order dated 3-10-1991 the Special I.G.P. dismissed the petitioner from service. It is this order of dismissal passed by the Special I.G.P. as well as the order of reduction in pay-scale passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Mehsana, which are challenged before this Court by the present writ-petition.

(3.) Mr. Jagdish Yadav, the learned advocate for the petitioner, while challenging these two impugned orders vehemently contended that the same were on face of them quite arbitrary, illegal and unjust, which has resulted into serious failure of justice, and accordingly, the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Making good these general submissions, Mr. Yadav has raised the following two contentions :- (i) That the finding of the concerned authority holding that the alleged misconduct against the petitioner was proved, was on face of it patently perverse, unfair, unjust, arbitrary and illegal in as much as the same has proceeded on a single track of reasoning namely that what has been alleged by 8 witnesses examined against him have been mechanically accepted without considering the just, reasonable and probable defence version put-forward by the petitioner-delinquent (ii) That in the alternative, in case this Court was not inclined to accept the aforesaid first contention, then in that case, taking into consideration the alleged quite sudden trifle misconduct of the petitioner-delinquent, the punishment of dismissal being quite harsh and unjust being grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.