KABLE SINGH SANGHERE Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 4.1.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 1001/90 gave rise to this appeal. The Civil Rule preferred by the petitioner-appellant in the matter of his service regarding disciplinary proceeding was dismissed.

(2.) We have heard Shri B.C. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri N.N. Saikia, learned Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

(3.) The brief facts necessary to appreciate the points involved in the present appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 16.2.86 in the Arunachal Pradesh Police. He was posted at Police Station Pashighat. A departmental proceeding was initiated jointly against the petitioner and another police officer namely Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. Altogether two charges were levelled against them. One of them was that they unloaded 24 Nos. C.G.I, sheet from a bus which was brought to the Police Station and the next charge was that on the same day they took Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification from one Bindheswar Singh. A joint enquiry was held and witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer. However, on consideration of the materials available before him exonerated both from the charges and submitted his report on December 13, 1988. The Disciplinary authority however, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges were proved. By order dated 26.5.89 the Deputy Inspector General of Police (W) imposed the punishment of reduction of rank to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 5 years. On appeal preferred against the order dated 26.5.89 passed by the D.I.G.(W) the Inspector General of Police by order dated 4.12.89 reduced the pay by four stage in the time scale for a period of four years. The petitioner challenged the order of punishment and one of the main contention raised before the learned Single Judge has been that no opportunity of showing cause was at all afforded to the appellant by the Disciplinary authority before reversing the finding of the Enquiry Officer recorded in favour of the appellant exonerating him of the charges. It is also the case of the appellant that a copy of the enquiry report was also not furnished. On facts mere seems to be no dispute that the Disciplinary authority did not give any opportunity of hearing to the appellant before recording the finding of guilt against the appellant reversing the findings of exoneration recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Learned Single judge, however, dismissed the petition with observation that the question of giving an opportunity to the petitioner at the second stage of enquiry does not arise. We feel that the question involved was not regarding providing opportunity of hearing at the second stage of enquiry. As a matter of fact, it was still at the first stage of enquiry in the sense that the: Enquiry Officer enquired into the matter recorded the findings exonerating the delinquent which was forwarded onwards to the Disciplinary authority for his consideration. Unidsputedly, it is the sole domain of the Disciplinary authority either according acceptance to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer or to take a different view. But the only question which was canvassed before the learned Single Judge was that before taking any different view for upsetting the findings in favour of the delinquent it was necessary for the Disciplinary authority to afford opportunity of hearing and show cause as to why a different view be not taken for the reasons indicated in the notice.