TAPIR JERANG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Until 16.2.1994, when the petitioner was dismissed from service, the petitioner, in this writ petition, was a Sub-Inspector of Police under the Arunachal Police. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of his dismissal from service, but his appeal was turned down. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by way of the present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging not only the legality of the order of his dismissal from service, but also the appellate order turning down his appeal. The petitioner has also challenged the legality and fairness of the very disciplinary proceeding drawn against him, which culminated into his dismissal from service.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner, in his writ petition, is as follows: The petitioner has been serving as a Sub- Inspector of Police under the Arunachal Pradesh Police since 17.2.1989. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order, dated 16.2.94, issued by the respondent No. 3, with effect from 26.01.94, in exercise of powers contained in Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, on the ground that a departmental proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner. The petitioner was, then, served with Memo No. PHQ/DP-10/94, dated 14.3.94, whereby the petitioner was informed that a regular departmental proceeding had been drawn against him and the petitioner was accordingly directed to show cause under Rule 14 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965, read with Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861. According to the article of charges as well as statement of imputation, while posted at Pasighat Police Station, the petitioner, on 11.12.93 at about 2400 hrs, forcibly got opened the lock up and severely assaulted the UTP, namely, Bagang Lago, causing serious injuries to him requiring him to be referred to the Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh, for treatment. The petitioner submitted his written statement denying and disputing the correctness/ truthfulness of the accusations made against him, whereupon the respondent No. 3, vide order, dated 14.3.94 (Annexure-C to the writ petition), informed the petitioner that Sri N. Gungte, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pasighat, had been appointed as enquiry authority/ officer (hereinafter referred to as "the EO") to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. No presenting officer was, however, appointed to present the case before the EO. Thus, the EO performed the role of both presenting and as well as enquiry officer and, acting more as a prosecutor and without holding any enquiry with fairness and bona fide, the EO submitted his report to the authority concerned, whereupon the petitioner was informed, vide Order No. PHQRDP-10/94, dated 27.6.94, issued by the respondent No. 3 that penalty of dismissal from service had been awarded to the petitioner with effect from the date of the said order. This punishment of dismissal from service was passed without furnishing copy of the enquiry report and/or without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the question of penalty that was proposed to be imposed on him. The petitioner, who is completely innocent and is the only earning member of his family, preferred an appeal against the said order imposing penalty on him, but by order, dated 29.9.94 Annexure-I to the writ petition), petitioner's appeal was rejected and the punishment imposed on him was Confirmed.

(3.) The respondents have contested this Ease by filing their affidavit-in-opposition, The case of the respondents being, in short thus: Appointment of the presenting officer was not essential. The enquiry conducted by the EO was in accordance with law. The penalty of dismissal from service was correctly imposed on the petitioner and his appeal was, therefore, turned down. The respondents have prayed for dismissing the writ petition.