ANUSAYA EVAN KAMBALE Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the Petitioner against the order of removal passed by the Superintendent of Police, Satara dated 19th of January, 1985. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner was appointed as a temporary woman constable in Satara, vide order dated 1st of February 1982. The petitioner was given training for 9 months. She continued in service and the first increment was granted to her in the year 1983 and second in February 1984. According to her she came to be appointed on a compassionate ground as her husband who was serving as Armed Police at Satara suffered serious injury in the year 1976 while undergoing Zudo training. He was declared unfit for work by the Civil Surgeon and therefore came to be compulsory retired from July 1976. He came to be declared fit in the year 1980 but could not join his daties as he died in the meanwhile. It is the case of the petitioner that abruptly without any rhyme or reason her services came to be terminated by an order dated 19th January 1985. It is contended by her that this order of termination is a camouflage one and has been issued in colourable exercise of the power, since there was enmity between her brother who is also working as a constable at Satara and one Shri T.B. Pawar. It is also the case of the petitioner that though the order apparently appears to be termination simpliciter, in substance it is dismissal for alleged misconduct. It is also alleged by her that the allegation made in the affidavit regarding her immoral character, was wholly false. She is living with her 5 minor school going children and old parents and leading a decent life.

(2.) The Respondents have denied the various allegations made in the petition. However, in para 3 of the affidavit, it is admitted by the respondents that "the services of the petitioner have been terminated not because of excess in the strength but because of her immoral gross misconduct in the police lines, which is quite unhygienic to the health of policemen and their young children." This is again repeated and reiterated in para 4 of the affidavit. Thus it is quite apparent that the foundation of the order is alleged misconduct.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing on the date of hearing, Shri Satpute, learned Assistant Pleader sought for adjournment to seek further instructions. Till today no further affidavit is filed nor any material is placed before us. As to what exactly is meant by "immoral gross misconduct in the police lines, which is quite unhygienic to the health of policemen and their young children is not known. The allegation made is hopelessly vague. To say the least even the Court is not taken into confidence in that behalf. No material is placed before us to show as to on what basis this serious charge is made. In these circumstances we have no other alternative but to hold that" the order of termination is based on the alleged misconduct, and, therefore, could not be termed as termination simpliciter. In substance this is an order of dismissal. Admittedly before passing this order no enquiry was held and not even a chargesheet was issued. No material is also placed on record in support of such a serious allegation. Therefore to this case the law laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 84 : 1986(2) LLJ 343 Nepal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. must squarely apply. In the result, therefore, Rule is made absolute. The order of termination dated 19th January 1985 terminating the services of the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages etc. The petitioner to be reinstated in service within a period of one month. It is needless to say that the Respondents are at liberty to take action against the petitioner, after reinstatement, if so advised in accordance with law. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.