V RAJULU Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29-6-1988 of the 2nd respondent removing the petitioner from the Home Guards Organisation with immediate effect.

(2.) The petitioner had joined the Home Guards Organisation on 21-6-1969 and ultimately he was functioning as Platoon Commander. At that time, a written complaint was given by 36 Home Guards to the 1st respondent alleging that the Reserved Inspector of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police were not paying the full amount which they were entitled to for the election duty on the occasion of the Co-operative Societies Elections from 25-6-1987 to 1-9-1987. The said complaint was not, however, signed by the petitioner. Those Home Guards gave a written statement that they were not aware of the contents of the petition and it was sponsored by the petitioner though he did not sign the same. Therefore, a notice dated 12-2-1988 was issued by the Superintendent of Police to the petitioner stating that since the allegations in the petition were found to be incorrect, sponsoring of such false petition amounted to gross indiscipline and misconduct. Hence, the petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be removed from the Organisation. The petitioner gave an explanation on 2-3-1988 stating that he had spotless record of service, that it is hard to accept that the Home Guards, who signed the Memorandum, were not aware of the contents of the petition, that he had not signed to due to oversight, and that he stood by the complaint, and therefore, an impartial enquiry should be held into the matter. Thereafter, an impugned order was made on 21-6-1988 stating that his record of service was irrelevant to the allegations that the contents of the complaint was baseless. He, was, therefore, removed from the Organisation with immediate effect.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order cast a stigma on his character and was based in violation of principles of natural justice as well as the rules relating to removal for misconduct. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no appeal was provided against the impugned order, there should be greater care exercising in considering the explanation of the petitioner which should not have been thrown out without further enquiry. He further submitted that even if the rules do not provide for an opportunity, the principles of Natural Justice required that a full and effective opportunity should be given and the proceedings should indicate that there was fair play. He submitted that when the complainants, who are supposed to have withdrawn the complaint, were not allowed to be cross-examined, the petitioner was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard, and hence, the entire proceedings was void.