STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. RAM NAGINA DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of West Bengal and others have preferred this appeal under Clause 14 of the Letter Patent against the judgment of Amiya Kumar Mookerji J. making the Rule obtained by the respondent absolute and quashing the order of his dismissal passed by his disciplinary authority as well as the order of the appellant authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the respondent. The learned Judge remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for re-considering the matter afresh.

(2.) The respondent, Ram Nagina Dubey, was a Traffic Constable in the Calcutta Police Force. The Magistrate, 1st Class Gazipore had convicted the respondent and several others under S. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to R I for three months. The learned Magistrate had also convicted the respondent and others under S. 323.149 Indian Penal Code and also under S. 325/149 Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to R.I. for three months and six months respectively. The respondent, Ram Nagina Dubey and others had preferred an appeal against their said conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge, Gazipore. The learned Sessions Judge, Gazipaore by his order dated 31st October, 1969 had confirmed their convictions and sentence under S. 147 and 323/149 Indian Penal Code but had set aside their conviction and sentence under S 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. On 7th April, 1970 the Assistant Commissioner, Traffic Department, Calcutta Police had issued a charge sheet against the respondent. Firstly, the respondent was charged with moral turpitude on the ground that he had been convicted and sentenced under S. 147 and under S. 323/149 Indian Penal Code. Secondly, the respondent was charged with gross undisciplined conduct unbecoming of a member of the Calcutta Police Force because he had left his barrack without any permission from the proper authorities and had absented himself without permission from 7th April, 1970. The respondent had showed cause. The Assistant Commissioner (II), Traffic Department acting as the Enquiry Officer conducted a proceeding against the respondent. The said Equity Officer found that both the charges against him had been proved and recommended his dismissal from the force and service. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Department by his provisional order dated 25th April, 1970 had accepted the said enquiry report and formed the opinion that both the charges against the delinquent had been proved. The Deputy Commissioner directed the respondent to show-cause as to why he shall not be dismissed from service. The respondent in his reply stated that he would place himself at the mercy of the Deputy Commissioner, Traffic Department and prayed for re-consideration of the mater. In his reply the respondent mentioned about cases of two other police personnel's whose convictions were not considered as an offences involving moral turpitude. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Department by his order dated 5th September, 1970 dismissed the respondent from service.

(3.) The respondent being aggrieved by the said order had presented an appeal to the Commissioner of Police. While the appeal was pending, the respondent moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution and had obtained Civil Rule No. 5622(W) of 1971. On 16th July, 1974, Anil Kumar Sen J. made the said Rule absolute in part by directing the appellate authority to hear out the appeal of the present respondent. Ram Nagina Dubey, at an early date and to dispose of the specific issue raised by him that the conduct which led to his conviction did not amount to an act of moral turpitude. The learned Judge did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.