BAURIBANDHU MISRA Vs. I G OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a police constable. In February, 1960, he was attached to jaleswar Police Station in the district of Balasore. On 7-2-1960 a farewell party was given at Jaleswar Police Station on the occasion of the transfer of the Officerin-Charge. When the Police Officers, other constables and outsiders assembled at the barracks to attend the feast, the petitioner entered into the barracks with a short lathi in a drunken state and inflicted blows on constable No. 29. Thereafter, the petitioner remained confined in his own room, bolting the door from inside and did not listen to repeated calls by the Assistant Sub-Inspector to come out. A proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner. On 22-9-1961, the superintendent of Police, Balasore (Opposite Party No. 31) ordered that the petitioner would forfeit his best increment as also his next increment for a period of two years from 1-9-1961, involving a pecuniary loss of Rs. 41/ -. He also imposed three black marks. An appeal to the Inspector-General of Police produced no result. The writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution challenging the order of the Superintendent of Police imposing the aforesaid punishment,

(2.) IN the writ application, the impugned order was challenged on several grounds such as that the procedure laid down for holding enquiries was not followed, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was taken at the back of the petitioner, copies of documents were not supplied though they were utilised by the prosecution, the proceeding was conducted in English which was not known to the petitioner, and no opportunity was given to defend petitioner through counsel. At the time of hearing, all these grounds were not pressed. The only contention urged by Mr. Patnaik was on the basis of certain facts not mentioned in the writ application. Ordinarily, such a contention would not have been permitted to be urged as it would involve a question of fact. But as the learned Advocate-General did not dispute the accuracy of the factual basis of the statement, the contention was permitted to be urged.

(3.) THE undisputed facts on which the contention is based are that initially, one Mr. Bhowmick was appointed as the enquiring officer. On the application of the petitioner to transfer the proceeding from Mr. Bhowmick, the disciplinary authority appointed one Mr. Hazari as the enquiring officer. Mr. Hazari was subsequently transferred and so the disciplinary authority appointed one Mr. Paramananda Misra as the enquiring officer. Each of these enquiring officers recorded some evidence and the enquiry report was submitted by Mr. Paramananda Misra.