MADHAB GOGOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner D/C ABC/30 30 Madhav Gogoi, who is a constable in the Assam Police has been dismissed from service by the order dated 08.04.2020. The dismissal was on the basis of an enquiry report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter that the petitioner behaved in an irresponsible manner during Covid-19 Pandemic situation by taking away the vehicle of the District Police Chief which not only violated the lockdown norms but also created nuisance in the public place and he was under the influence of alcohol and also assaulted a senior officer who went forward to control him. We are not on the reasons as to why the petitioner had been dismissed. The order of Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur provides that the dismissal was made without holding any disciplinary proceeding by invoking the power of Article 311(ii)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India and Rule 10(ii) of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1964. We have gone through the Constitution of India but have not come across any such power as Article 311 (ii)(b)(c).

(3.) Be that as it may, the order of dismissal was also issued under Rule 10(ii) of Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule 1964. Both, the provision of Article 311(2) in respect of sub-clauses (b) and (c) to the proviso thereof, as well as Rule 10(ii) of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 empowers the disciplinary authority to pass any such order as it deems fit, where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practical to follow the procedure of holding the disciplinary enquiry or in respect of Article 311(2) sub-clause (c) of the proviso thereof, the President or the Governor is satisfied that for the interest of security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry. The order of 08.04.2020 does not record any such satisfaction that neither it is practical to hold an enquiry nor that it is not expedient to hold the enquiry in the interest of security of the State.