SACHINDRA NATH DEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was charged on three counts. However, first one, if proved, is so serious that it would deserve not only capital punishment being dismissal from service but also a social stigma through out his life. The Authority dismissed him from service while he had three and half years service left to his credit. As on date, he is out of service and carrying social stigma which, unless removed by this Court, would be with him throughout his lifetime. The petitioner was an Assistant Sub-Inspector posted at Hasnabad Police Station in 1997. While he was at Hasnabad, he was involved in a controversy. According to him, he got acquainted with one Anil Mondal and Golapi Mondal, pertaining to their domestic affairs. The people say that he had illicit relationship with Golapi. He was subsequently transferred to other Police Station, he however, continued to visit Hasnabad, as alleged by the Administration. On June 21, 1998 Santimoy, Officer-in-Charge, Hasnabad Police Station, received a verbal communication that the house of Jaladhar Houli, father of Golapi, was gheraoed and the villagers were about to assault Sachindra, who was found staying in the said house. Santimoy, along with Force, arrived at the place of occurrence. He rescued Sachindra and brought him to the police station. Santimoy in his report recorded that Sachindra was found in a locked-room with Golapi. Such statement, however, did not find corroboration from any other supportive evidence except the Police Personnel. Pertinent to note, neither the parents of Golapi nor any villager was examined at the enquiry. From the Case Diary and/or records produced before us by Mr. Majumdar, we find that a voluntary statement of the delinquent was recorded by Santimoy, wherefrom we find that the delinquent did not agree with the slur, which the villagers wanted to mess on him. As per his statement before the police station, recorded at 3-00 O'clock in the night, he went to the house of Jaladhar Houli. He stayed there. He also agreed that he used to go there frequently. Jaladhar's daughter Golapi had some matrimonial problem with her husband Anil. Anil was next door neighbour of Jaladhar. The local villagers, however, believed that he had some illicit relationship with Golapi and out of surmise they surrounded the house and the incident happened. At 1-00 O'clock at night the police rescued Sachindra from the said house. He denied having any relationship with Golapi and admitted having acquainted with the family while he was posted at Hasnabad. He also promised not to visit the place any more. The Police procured this statement on the day of the incident when the delinquent was in the custody of the police. Pertinent to note, even then the delinquent did not agree with the allegation that he had illicit relationship with Golapi.

(2.) From the records we find three letters of Anil having contradictory statements. On June 20, 1998, Anil made a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Hasnabad Police Station that Sachindra was unnecessarily involving himself in their family problem. He was visiting the family despite being warned. He established illicit relationship with Golapi. Such complaint was followed by the incident at night on the next day. From the records, it appear, that on October 20, 1998 the delinquent was furnished with charge sheet on the allegation that he had misconducted himself by establishing illicit relationship with Golapi, which would amount to moral turpitude. He also failed to attend duty on May 16, 1998 and abused the driver of a hired car in filthy language on the said date. It appears that second two charges were minor in nature.

(3.) We also find from the records that on September 19, 1998 Anil and Golapi filed another complaint wherein they alleged that Sachindra was innocent. He was victim of circumstance. The family had land dispute with the relations of Golapi, who joined hands with the relations of Anil. Pertinent to note, Golapi was the second wife of Anil. His sons through his first wife also joined hands with the other group and got political backing of a political party then ruling the State. Due to such land dispute the other group caused immense prejudice to Golapi and Anil. They also poisoned their poultry causing loss to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. We find another complaint of Anil on June 29, 1998, supporting earlier complaint of June 20, 1998, accusing Sachindra maintaining illicit relationship with Golapi. We fail to appreciate how we could reconcile the two versions of the same person. From the record it appears that the signatures vary as we find through our naked eyes. We, however, admit that we do not have the expertise to come to a definite conclusion on that score. The Authority, however, did not venture such process. From the records it also appears that the higher Authority acted on both the complaints. The result, however, is not known. On January 8, 1999 villagers, numbering 142 or so, made complaint about the incident of June 21, 1998 accusing Sachindra. Golapi made another complaint on January 19, 1999. Golapi was however, consistent on her statement. Before the enquiry, Anil supported the case of the prosecution while Golapi supported the other version. Golapi, although a prosecution witness, supported the other version. According to Golapi, she had a relation with Sachindra. They were cousins and there was no illicit relationship between them. Anil however, disputed such contention. On these facts, the Authority dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated April 25, 2003. We find from the record that the Enquiry Officer examined the witnesses on March 23, 1999 and February 15, 2000, whereas the report was submitted on August 28, 2000. It was alleged that no copy of the deposition was ever served on Sachindra contemporaneously. From the records we find that copies of the depositions were given to him on November 23, 2000 much after submission of the Enquiry report.