DINESH SINGH Vs. SUPDT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as Sub- inspector of Reserve Police, Sekmai Police Station, was detailed for election duty in connection with the 1 3th Lok Sabha in the Outer Parliamentaiy Constituency of Manipur by order dated 26.9.1999 of the Superintendent of Police, imphal West. By the said order, the petitioner was to be Commander of the Striking Reserve No. 6 consisting of 20 armed personnel of the 9th Bn. Manipur Rifles to be stationed at Sekmai Police Station which was re-deployed at Tungam village in Senapati District. In course of discharge of such duties, some armed men suspected to NS CN (IM) militants over powered the party tinder the petitioners command and took away the automatic weapons and ammunitions issued to the police personnel tinder his command on 4.10.1999. Disciplinary proceed ings were initiated against the petitioner on the charges that he failed to discharge the duty expected from a trained Police Officer, and more so as Commander of the Striking Reserve Force he did not put up the slightest resistence when NSCN(IM) took away the arms and ammunitions issued to the 9 MR personnel under his command and that he had wilfully donated the aims and ammunitions to the extremists. The petitioner in his written statement of defence did not admit the said charges. The Additional Superintendent of Police (MT) Imphal West District was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges and the Enquiry officer submitted his inquiry report on 20.7.2000 to the effect that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved in toto. The Disciplinary Authority, namely the Superintendent of Police, Imphal West District. Manipur, issued a show cause notice dated 11.1.2000 to the petitioner. stating therein that he did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the petitioner were held not proved in toto. In the said show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority observed that the petitioner was the Commander of the Striking Reserve Force No. VI and that it was his responsibility to brief his men properly, motivate them while on duty and to fight against the militants and that there were 4( four) sentries on duty and it was surprising to note that they did not notice the intruding militants who over-powered them and for these acts of the sentries by and large the Commander of the Striking Reserve Force was responsible. In the said show cause notice, it was further stated that the petitioner had not briefed the sentries and not taken due care for the protection of the Government properties and this resulted in loss of arms and ammunitions of the Striking Reserve Force, and hence the Disciplinary Authority had decided to impose major penalty of removal from service. By the said show cause, the petitioner was given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. The petitioner submitted a representation in reply to the said show cause notice, but by order dated 7.9.2000, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the said order dated 7.9.2000 of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal, but the Appellate Authority, namely, Deputy Inspector General of Police (R-I), Manipur, rejected the said appeal by order dated 20.10.2000. Aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 11.1.2000. order of dismissal dated 7.9.2000 and the order rejecting the appeal dated 20.10.2000, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Mr. A. Nilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order of dismissal were based on no evidence whatsoever and that the Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of various misconducts described in the order of dismissal on the basis of conjectures and surmises. He further submitted that the principles of natural justice as well as the provision of reasonable opportunity as provided in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution made it incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to indicate his reasons as to why he intended to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and such opportunity had to be given before he took final view in the matter. On a plain reading of the iimpugned show cause notice dated 11.1.2000 it would be clear that the Disciplinary Authority had taken the final view that he did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and decided to impose major penalty of removal from service against the petitioner even before the petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation against the reason indicated by the Disciplinary Authority for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Finally, Mr. Nilmani submitted mat a comparison of the impugned show cause notice dated 11.1.2000 and the impugned order of dismissal dated 7.9.2000 would show that some fresh reasons have been given in the impugned order of dismissal dated 7.9.2000 which were not indicated in the impugned show cause notice dated 11.1..2000 for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and for imposing penalty of dismissal from service. In support of his submissions, Mr. Nilmani cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharastra, (1999) 7 SCC 739:

(3.) In reply, Mr. Jagat Chandra, learned State counsel, submitted that the procedure as laid down in rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual has been followed for imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service. He further submitted that all due opportunities were given to the petitioner before the order of dismissal was passed against him. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. MC Saxena, (1998) 3 SCC 385, in support of his contention that the Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and act upon his own conclusion, but the only requirement is that the Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and if the Disciplinary Authority gives reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer then the court cannot interfere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable man can come to the said findings.