BISUBHA G. KHUMAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the findings of the Inquiry Officer and order of dismissal dated 15.9.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of dismissal.

(2.) Petitioner was working as a Constable with State Reserve Police Force. A compliant came to be filed on 7.12.2005 by one Mr. Vasudev S.Chaudhary, who was working as Writer to the Assistant Commandant at the relevant time. As per this complaint, a scuffle took place between him and the petitioner and thereby he sustained injury on his head by the rifle of the petitioner. The incident was witnessed by the other employees. After injury, the complainant was taken for treatment to a doctor. He lodged a complaint and on the basis of compliant, inquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner. List of witnesses and other required documents were supplied to the petitioner. Some of the witnesses in the inquiry proceedings do not support their initial version. However, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. He was served upon second show-cause notice and thereafter, he came to be dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 15.9.2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed. It appears that earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court against the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, however, his petition came to be dismissed vide Special Civil Application No.4101 of 2006. The said Special Civil Application came to be dismissed in limine on 23rd February, 2006. Petitioner also has approached the Civil Court against his dismissal from service.

(3.) After notice, the respondents have contested this petition by filing reply wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner is in the habit of such acts. As in past also, on various occasions, he has picked up fight with his colleagues and superior officers. He has been warned as well as fined. It has been further pleaded that even in the year 2015-16, as many as three FIRs has been registered against the petitioner. By relying upon these submissions, it has been prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.