RAMESHKUMAR SUMERSINGH BAROLIA Vs. COMMANDANT SRP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Constable in the State Reserve Police Force. He was subjected to charge-sheet dt.25.2.88 on the allegations that he had proceeded on sick leave on 3.9.84 and returned after 485 days from his native place without informing anybody about his sickness, that he resumed his duties after issuance of four notices and remained absent from duty for 485 days without informing his superiors and that from 17.4.86 he deserted the duties without informing his superiors and returned to duty on 29.8.87. The Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold an inquiry against the petitioner. On 17.3.88 the petitioner's statement was recorded and the copy of this statement, which has been placed on record as Annexure 'B' (page 23 with the Special Civil Application), shows that he had received the charge-sheet and had also read and understood the same and while answering Question No.3 he categorically admitted the charges and while admitting the charges he had stated that he had committed the mistake. This statement also shows that while answering question No.4 he sought to explain that while he was discharging his duties in the year 1983 at Ukai Thermal Power, a tribal person, who was doing the business of liquor, was raided and this person had administered some such drink to him by which he became unconscious. He got the treatment from some Tantrik but to no avail and, therefore, he was sent to his native place by his Company Commandant alongwith two Constables. There also he was subjected to some treatment and came back on duty after he felt little better and that this was also known to his Company Commandant and other Jawans of the Company. That in these circumstances, the mistake was committed by him and in future he will not commit any such mistake. Whereas the charges were categorically admitted by the petitioner, while the Inquiry Officer held charge No.1 to be proved and taking note of the oral explanation as was rendered by the petitioner in answer to question No.4 in his statement, to which reference has been made hereinabove, and also taking note of the fact that he was a member of backward class, the Inquiry Officer recommended that a lenient view may be taken and also mentioned that he was desirous of a personal hearing. The Inquiry Officer has also mentioned about the statements of six witnesses, who are Head Constables and Police Sub Inspectors. The Commandant after considering the report of the Inquiry Officer, issued a show cause notice as to why he should not be subjected to the punishment of penalty of deduction of basic salary of one month i.e. Rs.855.00. In this show cause notice it is also mentioned that he may file the reply and if he wants a personal hearing he may mention so in his reply and be present personally alongwith the reply. The Commandant then passed the order dated 4-7/8-88 imposing the penalty of Rs.855.00 i.e. the basic pay of one month as was proposed and it is also mentioned in this order that though the petitioner had received the show cause notice on 27.6.88 he had neither filed any reply nor had he come for the personal hearing. This order dated 4-7/8-88 is placed on record as Annexure 'E'. The petitioner did not challenge this order, but it appears that from the Office of Khas Mukhya Police Adhikari a letter dt.24.1.91 was sent to the petitioner under the signatures of Nayab Mukhia Police Adhikari in the form of a show cause notice for enhancement of the punishment and stating therein that why the order passed by the Commandant dt.4.8.88 may not be set aside and why he should not be removed from the service. This show cause notice for enhancement of the punishment issued on 24.1.91 was received by the petitioner on 1.2.91 to which he filed a reply on 26.2.91 and he also appeared for personal hearing on 20.3.91. He filed a further reply on 21.3.91. Having considered the petitioner's version and the replies filed by him, the Nayab Mukhya Police Adhikari passed an order on 18.6.91 holding the charges to be proved and imposing the penalty of removal from service. Against this order dt.18.6.91 the petitioner preferred a Revision before the Home Department of the Government of Gujarat and the Joint Secretary, Home Department, passed an elaborate order on 16.1.92 after considering the entire record and after dealing with the submissions made by the petitioner and rejected the revision application. Thus, the petitioner stands removed in terms of the order dated 18.6.91.

(2.) Aggrieved from the removal from service, as aforesaid, on the basis of the order dt.18.6.91 and the order passed by the Home Department on 16.1.92 the petitioner preferred this Special Civil Application on 15.6.92. Rule was issued by this Court on 8.12.92 but no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Supehia has argued that the petitioner had admitted the charges as a part of plea bargaining because he was given to understand that in case he admits the charges, a lenient punishment shall be imposed against him and, therefore, an inquiry should have been held against him. This contention is far from convincing for the simple reasons that in the statement dt.17.3.88 there is no indication whatsoever about the plea bargaining and in the explanation, which he has given in answer to question No.4 in this very statement, also he has not given any indication about such a plea bargaining and the explanation, which he has given in answer to question No.4, also relates back to the year 1983 whereas the charges against the petitioner relate to September 1984, 1986 and 1987. Besides the fact that there is no contemporaneous evidence on record to show with regard to plea bargaining, the more important fact is that he did not care even to file the reply to the show cause notice dt.18/20-6-88, as had been given to him by the Commandant. In absence of any contemporaneous evidence in support of the plea of bargaining and the oral and bald explanation given in answer to question No.4, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted and merely because the petitioner has come out with the plea of bargaining or the explanation, this Court does not find any material on record to accept the same. There was a categorical and unconditional admission of the charges and guilt before the Inquiry Officer himself in the course of inquiry while answering straight questions and, therefore, there is no justification to raise the contention that the petitioner should have still been called upon by the Inquiry Officer to lead evidence in his defence in the inquiry.