DEBITHSON D SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has question the validity of the impugned order of discharge dated 7.10.96 bearing DO No. 12865, issued by the Superintendent of Police, West Garo Hills, Tura. thus discharging the writ petitioner, UBC-454, Shri Debithson D. Sangma, from Police service w.e.f. 7.10.96 as in Annexure-IX and the order of the appellate authority namely the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western Range, Tura, passed on 8.6.99 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as in Annexure-XI to the writ petition by contending inter alia that the petitioner was not most dedicated and sincere in his police service during his past 15 years of service career in the Meghalaya Police Department, but he has been discharged from service under the impugned order of discharge dated 7.10.96 by the authority concerned without any justification on the charge that he had illegally collected money amounting to Rs.100/- to Rs. 200/- from trucks coming from Mankachar towards Mahendraganj, while he was on duty at Kalaichar PP w.e.f. 4.5.95 to 23.5.95 and misused the official powers.

(2.) According to Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned Senior Advocate, the disciplinary proceedings/inquiry was initiated under DP No. 3/96 on the basis of a report submitted by the authority concerned by which the petitioner and four other Police Constable have been charged that they had misused their official powers and performed departmental misconduct as they had collected money amounting to Rs. 100/- to Rs.200/- from each vehicles/trucks w.e.f. 4.5.95 to 23.5.95 in discharge of their duties and, departmental proceedings were initiated and inquiry was held only against the petitioner, but not against the two retired Police Constables namely : UBC-02 Shri Nilambar Das and UBC-84 Shri Nibaran Paul, and in the said departmental proceedings the petitioner have been found guilty and accordingly, he has been discharged from service under the impugned order which was also confirmed by the Appellate authority without any justification. According to Mr. K.S.Kynjing, learned senior counsel the impugned order of penalty is disproportionate. Supporting this statement Mr. Kynjing has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Ex-C Sukhvinder Singh -Vs- Union of India & Ors., reported in (1999) 3 GLR 490 (1999 (3) GLT 551) and submitted that punishment imposed must be rational and it has to commensurate with the offence proved and the same must conform to the test of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution and, the authority should not go away from logic and the accepted legal and moral standards, and, order of punishment should not be extravagant ; oppressive and out of tune to the occasion.

(3.) It iis also contended by Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned senior counsel, that on the clear instructions from his immediate superiors, the petitioner and his other colleagues collected money from each truck operators from the area concerned to the tune of Rs.26,750/- and handed over the same to Sub-Inspector Shri Lipson Sangma and Havildar Shri H.C. Probinson Marak with proper accounts who both were incharge of ordering instructions of such collection and receiving of such collected amount from the petitioner and his four other colleagues at that point of time. But, those superior officers were exonerated and the petitioner and the other two constables became scape-goats and similarly situated two constables were not tried. It is also submitted by Mr. Kynjing that the account] maintained by the petitioner and his colleagues for such collection of money at the relevant time were submitted to the two superiors, as seen in the document marked Annexure II, but these aspects were ignored by the authority concerned while imposing penalty of discharge upon the writ petitioner.