DAVIDAS MADHUKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.1.1992, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, by which the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service. The petitioner has also challenged the orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 7.5.1992 and the Revision Authority dated 7th August, 1993, by which the order of the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed.

(2.) The petitioner who was at the relevant time working as a Police Constable was issued a charge-sheet dated 31.5.1989, alleging inter-alia that on 21.6.1988, while the petitioner was discharging his duties as a lock-up guard in City Policy Station of Baroda, out of two accused persons in the lock-up, one Nazirkhan Pathan complained that he has to come out of the lock-up to answer to the nature's call. It is further alleged that though the petitioner was alone in the Police Station at that time and guard commander and other two Police Constables were also absent, the petitioner without informing the Police Station officer or without taking help of any other Constable, opened the lock up and took the said accused to the toilet without handcuffing and did not bolt the door of the toilet from outside, nor did he keep proper vigilance and as a result of this negligence of the petitioner, said accused Nazirkhan Pathan escaped from the lock-up. Since the petitioner denied the charges, a full-fledged Departmental enquiry was conducted, pursuant to which the enquiry officer on 31.5.1989, submitted the report and concluded that the charges against the petitioner are proved.The Disciplinary Authority therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 24.9.1991, supplied a copy of the enquiry officer's report to the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. After considering the representation of the petitioner dated 31st October, 1991, the Disciplinary Authority by its impugned order dated 27.1.1992 was pleased to order that the petitioner be removed from service. The petitioner appealed against the said order without success and his revision petition also came to be rejected.

(3.) Appearing for the petitioner learned Advocate Mr. I.S. Supehia has assailed the orders passed by the authorities below on several grounds. Before outlining the grounds of challenge, it may be noted at the out-set that the learned Advocate for the petitioner has not disputed the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority. There is no contest to the fact that the incident as alleged has in fact taken place. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged any of the findings of fact arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority while accepting the enquiry officers' report. The learned Advocate for the petitioner however, has sought to challenge the impugned order on the following grounds:-