B G KHUMAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the fourth legal proceeding by the petitioner even before the departmental enquiry has actually commenced against him. The prayer is to quash the order dated 18/1/2006 appointing an Enquiry Officer to conduct and complete within 30 days an oral enquiry against the petitioner and to say the enquiry pending the litigation. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was serving as Armed Police Constable in SRP group, on 15.12.2005, a charge-sheet was issued to him alleged that he had assaulted, with his rifle in hand, another police constable and injured him. The charge-sheet itself conveyed in para 2 that the details of the incident alleged against the petitioner, the list of evidence and list of witnesses were annexed with the charge-sheet. It is also categorically stated that the record related to the departmental enquiry was available in the office and that the delinquent failed to submit his statement of defence within 10 days, it would be presume that he did not propose to submit his statement of defence and did not intend to examine any witness.

(2.) The petitioner appears to have immediately rushed to this Court with not one but two petitions, being Special Civil Applications No. 24235 and 24256 of 2005, which were withdrawn on 20/12/2005 with a view to making appropriate representation to the higher: authority for ventilating his grievances. Immediately thereafter, on 22/12/2005, the petitioner has written a letter to respondent no.3 stating that, since he had made representation pursuant to the order of the High Court, he did not propose to file any statement of defence till his representation was decided.

(3.) The respondent no.3 has then made' impugned order dated 18/1/2006 to appoint Enquiry Officer with a direction to conduct the enquiry on day-to-day basis and complete it within 30 days. Immediately, on 21/1/2006, the petitioner has submitted a long list of documents required by him for preparing his statement of defence and objected to the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, He has, by a separate letter, also intimated that he did not intend to submit his statement of defence till the documents were supplied and in absence of the documents, he did not intend to participate in the enquiry. Again, by letter dated 12/2/2006, the petitioner has submitted a long list of documents stating them to be required for proper participation in the enquiry and stating that he had even remained personally present for giving his statement on the same day. The Enquiry officer informed the petitioner by letter dated 17/2/2006 that the documents demanded by him could not be supplied as they were not part of the record of the enquiry and again called him to remain present on 18/2/2006. The petitioner also directly addressed the letter dated 6/2/2006 to the Additional Director General of Police (Amend Unit) requesting postponement of the enquiry and demanding the aforesaid documents. Admittedly, the petitioner had also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 21/06 in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Bharuch with respect to the subject-matter of the petition and withdrawn it on 27/2/2006 with a view to file fresh proceedings in the High Court.