PRABHATSINH SAMATSINH Vs. D S P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged an order of his removal dated 28. 1. 88 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case are:-The petitioner was employed as Armed Police Constable. A charge-sheet dated 31. 12. 84 came to be issued against the petitioner. In the chargesheet, it was alleged that the petitioner had married one Chandanben about 20 years back through which marriage he had five children. Despite this, about 10 years back, the petitioner had come in contact with one Savitaben and had developed illicit relations with her. They stayed together as husband and wife out of which cohabitation, they had two children. In the school records of the children also, the petitioner was shown as their father. Once again, thereafter, the petitioner developed illicit relation with one Dhuliben of village Rajpura, Taluka Padra and they are living together as husband and wife. Since the petitioner did not accept the charges, departmental inquiry was conducted. Upon conclusion of the oral inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 28. 12. 87. The Inquiry Officer relied on statements of various witnesses to hold that the charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice on 4. 1. 88 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service. After considering the representation of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority by the impugned order dated 28. 1. 88 awarded punishment of removal from service. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order. The Appellate Authority, however, by an order dated 31. 5. 88 dismissed the appeal. Hence the petition. Though initially the petition was heard by the learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 29. 6. 88, learned single Judge noticed certain conflicting observations in various decisions of learned single Judges of this court with respect to the question whether an act which has no relation to the discharge of duties of an employee can be treated as misconduct. The learned Judge, therefore, referred the issue to Larger Bench observing that "it is necessary to get the question conclusively decided by a Larger Bench under what circumstances a conduct of a Police personnel can be said to be unbecoming a Police personnel". 2. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties at length. Learned advocate Shri J. A. Adeshra for the petitioner raised the following contentions :-That charges against the petitioner were not proved, that the conduct of the petitioner was not covered under the misconducts defined under the Service Rules, in any case, the acts of the petitioner were not connected with the discharge of his duties and therefore, the petitioner cannot be punished for misconduct, that second show cause notice was pre-judged and the authority had already decided to impose punishment of removal. That the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the proved charges.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned AGP opposed the petition. He took us through the materials on record and submitted that no case for interference has been made out in exercise of powers under the writ jurisdiction. We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the following manner : re: Charges not proved: