BALRAM GANPAT MAHAMUNKAR Vs. DY POLICE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Learned AGP, Ms.Sheth, waives the service.

(2.) As per the earlier order dated 13.7.2005 passed by another Division Bench of this Court, learned AGP, Ms.Sheth, has produced the entire file of the appellant petitioner which includes rewards / awards as well as punishment inflicted on the appellant during his service career between 8.12.1953 and 24.4.1985. We have carefully gone through the same and as requested by learned Counsel for the parties, this appeal is disposed of by this judgment today.

(3.) The appellant petitioner Shri Balram M. Mahamunkar from Maharashtra had joined the services as Police Constable way back on 8.12.1953 as soon as he completed age of 18 years, as he was born on 19.12.1935. He was promoted first as Second Grade Head Constable in 1978 and later on, further promoted to the post of First Grade Head Constable in 1980. As per his case in the writ petition, during the service for more than 28 years, he was awarded 16 rewards and awards for his excellent performance. 3.1 However, it is the case of the Department that on 4.1.1981 at about 9.15 p.m. in the night hours, he was found drunk behind police canteen when wrestling program was going on. He was arrested for the offences under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85 (1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1849 and immediately on that very day i.e. on 4.1.1981, placed under suspension. Simultaneously, Criminal Case No.4002 of 1981 was filed against him in the Court of learned JMFC,Surat. The prosecution had examined panch witness Chhabildas Jaikishandas, Police Head Constable Parshottambhai Bhogilal, Amrat Chhotalal and retired PSI Shri Pandurang Shyamrao Jaggannath. Panch witness turned hostile and the remaining police witnesses not supported the prosecution case. Sufficient opportunities and time were given to the prosecution to examine important witnesses like doctor, who had examined the delinquent accused and the Chemical Analyzer. But, the prosecution failed to examine them. Considering all these, the learned JMFC,Surat by his order dated 30.1.1982 acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1849 in absence of any evidence.