RAM NAGINA DUBEY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an appellate order dated 8.4.70 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Calcutta confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the police service, passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) The petitioner was a Traffic Police Constable in the Calcutta Police Force. While on leave, he went to his village - Goshandaypur in Gazipur district. There he was involved in a criminal case. He was convicted and sentenced to RI along with others for three months under Section 147 I.P.C. as also Sections 323/149 and 325/149 of the same Code. On appeal, he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 325/149 of the Code but his conviction under Sections 147 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld. As a result thereof a disciplinary proceeding, being Proceeding No.38 dated 8.4.70, was started against the petitioner on a charge that his involvement in the incident leading to the aforesaid conviction constituted moral turpitude. Such a charge sheet was issued on 7.4.70. A supplementary charge sheet was added on 17.4.70 to the effect that the petitioner left the Barrack without permission from the appropriate authorities during the period from 5.4.70 to 6.4.70 and absented himself from the Suspension Guard without any permission. The petitioner replied to the charges wherein he admitted the fact that he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. He also stated therein that the conviction was the result of a false prosecution by the complainant, who was related to him. There was a long-standing enmity and dispute with him over a piece of land. He further pleaded that even on the conviction it was a simple case of assault not involving any moral turpitude. On the supplementary charge he admitted having left the Barrack without permission but he pleaded that he did so under compelling circumstances.

(3.) An enquiry was held by an Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Enquiring Officer on evidence found that the petitioner's conviction on a charge under Sections 147 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code have been established. But he did not come to any finding that such conviction involved moral turpitude. He also found that the petitioner left the Barrack and failed to attend the Suspension Guard without any previous permission.