ALAUDDIN MAJUMDER Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, while working as the Sub-Inspector of Police at Kamalpur Police Station had arrested one Benu Sukla Baidya, brought to that person to Kamalpur Police Station for custody in connection with Kamalpur P.S. case No.21 of 2013 under Sections 457/380 of the IPC. The said arrestee was given police remand for 5[five] days w.e.f. 22.04.2013. The petitioner, in the course of his official duty, took out the said arrestee from the lockup for purpose of interrogation in the CIPA Project room, located in the first floor of Kamalpur P.S. According to the petitioner, at that point of time, the said arrestee requested the petitioner to provide him water and the petitioner went down to the ground floor to fetch water keeping the accused in the said room. When he came back to the room for interrogation, he found the arrestee was hanging from a ceiling fan. Then, the arrestee was shifted to the GBP hospital, Agartala considering his state of health. Thereafter, the arrestee was shifted to Kolkata for better treatment. During that treatment, the said arrestee died. Then, one Anima Sukla Baidya, wife of the arrestee filed an ejahar to Kamalpur P.S. under Sections 323/201/34 and Section 302 of the IPC. The police, on completion of the investigation, the CID filed the final report clearly holding that the arrestee committed suicide. Subsequently, Anima Sukla Baidya filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.151 of 2013 seeking compensation from the respondents [the State of Tripura and Ors.] for custodial death of her husband. A division bench of this court by the judgment dated 30.06.2014 dismissed the said writ petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate suit for redress. However, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide DP No.03 of 2013 dated 07.05.2013 on the charge for misconduct and negligence of duty. For purpose of reference, the articles of charge as leveled against the petitioner are reproduced hereunder:

(3.) The petitioner has by filing the written statement disputed the charge. Before issuance of the said memorandum of charge, there was a preliminary inquiry conducted by the respondent No.5. The preliminary inquiry report dated 23.04.2013 [Annexure-D to the writ petition] was filed to the respondent No.4. Having considered that report as it appears that the memorandum of charge was issued to the petitioner. But the petitioner has not produced any records but it appears that due process was followed for inquiring into the said charge and the inquiry was carried out in accordance with the Police Regulation of Bengal [See Rule 861]. The then SDPO, Laogtharaivalley, namely Nabadwip Jamatia was entrusted as the first inquiry officer and on his transfer, Sri Kallol Roy [the SDPO, Longthharaivallly, the respondent No.5] was appointed as the inquiry officer. The said inquiry officer conducted the inquiry but the charged officials, the petitioner herein and one head constable, namely Sujit Debnath did not according to the report of the inquiry officer cooperate in the inquiry proceeding. As a result, the inquiry proceeding was drawn to his culmination ex-parte. By the Inquiry report dated 23.10.2014, the inquiry officer held that the charges No.I, III and IV were proved against the petitioner. In the final order based on the said inquiry report dated 23.10.2014 it had been observed as under: