RAJUMIYA HANIF SAIYAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.02.2003, passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service by resorting to the provisions of Clause(b) to the second proviso of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has further assailed the order dated 30.10.2003, passed by the Appellate Authority, rejecting his appeal, as well as the order dated 24.03.2006, passed by the State Government, whereby the Revision Application of the petitioner has also been rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as garnered from the material on record, are that the petitioner was appointed as an Unarmed Police Constable, by an order dated 09.07.1980. During the course of his service, an offence was registered against him at Bapunagar Police Station, being C.R.No.I157/1994. The offence was registered under Section120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, as well as Sections3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 24.06.1994.

(3.) Respondent No.3, the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, being the Disciplinary Authority, passed the impugned order dated 15.02.2003, stating that the petitioner had not responded to the notices issued to him and was not found at his residence, therefore, he has not cooperated or remained present in the departmental proceedings though he is under suspension. Respondent No.3 has further noted that the Criminal Cases filed against the petitioner indicate his active involvement in the communal riots that took place in Ahmedabad City in the year 2002, and the petitioner was seen to be heading a mob with dangerous weapons in his hand, in connection with which he also came to be arrested. It is further stated by respondent No.3 in the said order, that the petitioner has displayed criminal tendencies, which amounts to grave misconduct, looking to the fact that he is a member of the Police Force. As the petitioner has remained in jail and has come into contact with criminal elements, it is very likely that he would intimidate the witnesses, who would not dare to testify against him. Looking to the number of criminal cases pending against the petitioner, the departmental inquiry would not be concluded for a long period of time. Respondent No.3 has further stated that keeping in mind the criminal tendencies displayed by the petitioner, it is likely that he would commit the same offence again in the future, therefore, it would not be reasonably practicable to keep the departmental proceedings pending for such a long time. On the above grounds, it was ordered that the petitioner be dismissed from service under the provisions of Article 311(2) Second Proviso Clause(b), as it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. Against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner to respondent No.2, which came to be rejected by an order dated 30.10.2003. The Revision Application preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority before respondent No.1State Government, has also been rejected by an order dated 24.03.2006. Aggrieved by the above three orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.