JNANEDRANATH MOHANTA Vs. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY TO GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Constable in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 4/9/2015 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj in Mayurbhanj Departmental Proceeding No.5 of 2002 (Annexure-3) imposing punishment of dismissal from service treating the period of suspension from 18/1/2002 to 7/5/2002 as such; as well as the order dtd. 4/8/2016 passed by the appellate authority, viz., D.I.G. of Police, Eastern Region, Balasore (Annexure-4) confirming the order of punishment; so also the order dtd. 5/5/2018 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar, in O.A. No. 2134 of 2016, as at Annexure-5, affirming the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order of confirmation passed by the appellate authority.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner, while working as a Constable under Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj, Departmental Proceeding No.5 of 2002 was initiated against him for gross misconduct, indiscipline, negligence and unauthorized absence from duty. It was alleged that while the petitioner was deputed to Rairangpur for sessions guard duty on 13/1/2002, his reliever reported to SDPO, Rairangpur. But he neither took his departure from CSI, Rairangpur nor from SDPO, Rairangpur, instead fled keeping his rifle in Rairangpur Sub-Treasury Guard. It was further alleged that on 16/1/2002, while he was driving a car rashly and negligently it dashed against a mini truck near Rairangpur Golei causing damage to the mini truck and after the accident he abused one Sapan Kumar Dey, the driver of that mini truck, assaulted him causing injuries on his person and snatched away cash of Rs.800.00 so also a wrist watch. Consequentially, a criminal case was registered as Rairangpur P.S. Case No.3 of 2002.

(3.) Mr. Manas Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that in compliance of the order dtd. 8/5/2015 passed in O.A. No.2540 of 2013, the opposite parties are bound to conduct the enquiry by affording opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine all the witnesses those who were examined during the enquiry and, as such, the disciplinary authority, having not satisfied with the reply, issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner and passed the final order imposing punishment on 4/9/2015, which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled position of law. It is further contended that on the basis of the charges framed against the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service and treating the period of suspension as such is shockingly disproportionate, for which the Court can interfere with the same. It is further contended that enquiry was conducted in a perfunctory manner without examining the vital witnesses, therefore, the punishment so imposed cannot sustain in the eye of law. As such, there was no proceeding initiated against the petitioner during his 25 years of service and he had never been communicated any adverse CCR, rather, he was awarded for his satisfactory performance from D.G. of Police. It is alternatively contended that since the punishment imposed against the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate, the Court may interfere with the quantum of punishment and modify the same to compulsory retirement so that the petitioner can get some financial benefits.