PURUSOTTAM GIRI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a constable of the police department, prays to quash the order of dismissal passed in a disciplinary proceeding by the S. P., Mayurbhanj (Annexure-7) confirmed by Annexure-10 which is the order passed by the Inspector General of Police before whom the petitioner filed a revision.

(2.) On 18-6-75 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the charge that being a Government servant and married since 1972, the petitioner kept one Basanti Devi as his concubine although his married wife was alive and that he took her to Barasahi police station with him without any permission. It was alleged that he was guilty of having violated the Government Servants Conduct Rules. He was asked to show cause by 30-6-75 as to why he should not be suitably dealt with for the said accusation vide Annexure-1. By Annexure-2 the petitioner denied the charge and stated that Basanti Devi is neither his concubine nor his married wife and that he had not violated any of the provisions of the Government Servants Conduct Rules. Under Annexure-3 the conducting officer was requested by the petitioner to supply him with the copy of the statements of witnesses cited against him and also the copy of the report of the S. I., if any, on the basis of which the proceeding was initiated. It is alleged that none of the documents asked for by the petitioner were supplied to him. The Enquiring Officer examined 3 witnesses on 6-11-75 by which date no notice was served on the petitioner intimating the date of enquiry and consequently the petitioner had no knowledge of the date of hearing to be 6-11-75. Subsequently on 30-11-75, two more witnesses were examined and the petitioner cross-examined those witnesses as he had the knowledge of the said date of hearing. On that date the petitioner was also given an opportunity to examine P. W. 2 who was examined on the previous date i. e. 6-11-75. But the other 2 witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 1 and 3 who were examined on 6-11-75 were not produced for cross-examination. on 25-12-75, the petitioner submitted a written defence wherein he enclosed a statement made by his wife Sakuntala Giri. In the said statement it was stated that the proceedings had been initiated on the basis of misunderstanding between the petitioner and herself (his wife) and that Basanti Devi was merely their maid servant. The Enquiring Officer submitted his report in Annexure-4 on 14-1-76 with a finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charge. It is alleged that the report of the Enquiring Officer is based on surmises and conjectures which O. P. No. 4, disciplinary authority mechanically accepted and issued a show cause notice as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his show cause as per Annexure-5 whereupon O. P. 2 passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner to be effective from 6-4-76, a copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-7. The petitioner filed in appeal before the D. I. G. of Police, Central Range. Orissa as per Annexure-8 and a representation to the I. G. of Police as per Annexure-9 which the I. G. of Police treated as a revision and disposed of the same by his order in Annexure-10. As already stated, the I. G. of Police in Annexure-10 rejected the revision and further observed that the period of suspension of the petitioner should not have been ordered to be treated as leave by the S. P. which could be done only on the basis of request of the petitioner. He directed the S. P. to pass appropriate orders to remedy, the defect.

(3.) The petitioner's main grievance is that Rule 24 (1) o,f the Orissa Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 does not apply to him inasmuch as he has not contracted another marriage during the lifetime of his wife. In other words his contention is that the charge against him being that he has kept a concubine the same would not come within the mischief of Rule 24 (1) inasmuch as keeping of a concubine even assuming to be true is not equivalent to contracting a marriage. The learned counsel further argues that had a marriage been performed the relationship of husband and wife would have been created and the lady would have acquired the status of a wife whereas a concubine has no such status. According to him Rule 24 (1) does not apply to a case where the charge does not amount to contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of a wife and thus keeping a concubine even if proved, would not come within the scope of Rule 24 (1) of the Orissa Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959. His second contention is that no notice fixing the date of hearing in the enquiry to be held on 6-11-75 was given to the petitioner for which the enquiry should not have Proceeded on that date. The examination of witnesses on 6-11-75 was illegal and the evidence recorded on that date should have been ignored from consideration. At any rate on the subsequent date opportunity was given to him for cross-examining P. W. 2 whereas no such opportunity was given for cross-examining p. Ws. 1 & 3. He has been seriously prejudiced for not being given any opportunity for cross-examining the said vital witnesses. His third contention is that the finding of the Enquiring Officer is based on surmises and conjectures which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority as well as by the revisional authority.