HARE KRISHNA JENA Vs. ADDL SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUR extraordinary jurisdiction has been invoked by the petitioner, a dismissed Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police, for the quashing of the order of dismissal (Annexure -10) passed by opposite party No. 2 and confirmed in appeal, by a certiorari.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as an Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police at the Fagu Anti -smuggling post located on the Bihar and Orissa border. There was clandestine movement of rice and paddy in huge quantity across the border. He has alleged that due to his earnest efforts he could curb the activities of the anti -social elements engaged in smuggling and thereby incurred their wrath and displeasure. Particularly he incurred the ire of the local Sarapanch Gopal Giri who was evertly and covertly associated with smuggling. Unfounded allegations were made by Gopal Giri against him to the higher authorities and an investigation ensued. It was conducted by the then Additional Superintendent of Police who recorded statements of various persons who stated before him that the petitioner had received illegal gratification from them. On the basis of the statements recorded during investigation and the report submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, a departmental proceeding was initiated by the then Superintendent of Police (opposite party No. 2). A set of charges was framed. The charges alone with a copy of the report on the basis whereof the charges were framed were communicated to the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his explanation to the charges. There were four heads of charges. The first three related to receipt of illegal gratification. Illegal gratification was received on two dates - March 19 and March 30, 1968. The other charge alleged misappropriation of one mound and twenty seers of rice seized by the petitioner. The petitioner categorically asserted that inasmuch as the charges were drawn up and based on the allegations made by certain persons before the Additional Superintendent of Police was made the preliminary enquiry, he ought to be supplied with copies of the statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry and with a copy of the petition of complaint lodged by Gopal Giri which set the preliminary enquiry in motion. Copies of neither of the documents were supplied to him. The petitioner asked for copies of certain documents for his defence. The petitioner moved the Superintendent of Police, the disciplinary authority, who was himself conducting the enquiry for a direction to supply copies of certain documents which were necessary to disprove some charges, as per Annexure -6. No order thereon was passed by opposite party No. 2. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the complexity of the case, the number of witnesses to be examined in the proceeding and the capability of the officer enquirying into the charges who was no other then the superintendent of Police, his disciplinary authority against whom the petitioner who was an Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police was no match, the petitioner pleaded for permission to defend himself in the proceeding by a lawyer. His prayer was turned down. He, however, participated in the proceeding in such adverse circumstance. The disciplinary -cum -enquiring authority himself acted as the presenting officer for the department examining the witnesses offered in support of the charges and cross -examining the witnesses examined by the petitioner in his defence. As many as nineteen witnesses were tendered by the department. Three witnesses were examined in defence. Nine documents were exhibited. The disciplinary authority was of the view that all the charges had been brought home to the petitioner and called upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. In his show cause, the petitioner made a grievance of denial of adequate opportunity, alleged capriciousness on the part of the disciplinary authority and assailed the findings on merit. He specifically alleged that the paddy alleged to have been misappropriated by him was, in fact, deposited in court. The disciplinary authority negatived the petitioner's plea that reasonable opportunity had not been provided and passed an order on July 19, 1972 dismissing the petitioner from service. In this appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, besides questioning the correctness of the findings, the petitioner alleged infraction of natural justice. He categorically alleged that copy of the petition filed by Gopal Giri and copies of the statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry were not supplied to him. His appeal was of no avail. He then moved the Government and also moved the Chief Minister for redress of his grievance, He awaited the decision of the highest authority in the State. As he had not the means, he could not move this Court earlier. When he learnt about aid being given under the Legal Aid Scheme, with such aid he took shelter in this Court.

(3.) MR . K. N. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that by denying copies of the complaint filed by Gopal Giri and the statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry and of documents which were vital for the petitioner's defence, the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated. By denial of assistance of a lawyer when the petitioner was being prosecuted by a Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was denied adequate and reasonable opportunity of defending himself. Besides, he has also endeavoured to show that some of the charges were misconceived and disproved by the materials on record of the proceeding. The learned Government Advocate repelled the submissions urging that the petitioner had been supplied with copies of the relevant papers. A copy of the enquiry report had been supplied. The petitioner was an Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police. Denial of the assistance of a lawyer did not and could not prejudice him. Documents, grant of copies was refused, were irrelevant.