UPENDRA NATH IANGRAI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of police, (SB), under the Government of Meghalaya. On 18.8.1994, when he was working as personal Security officer to the Finance Minister, Government of Meghalaya, he was sent by the Finance Minister to Maw Langsning along with the driver Sri Bikram Giri in an Ambassador car to fetch the family members of the Finance Minister from a religious function. On reaching Jaiaw Langsning, they were waiting on the road side in front of the residence of Sri Jonnanik Syiem for the family members of the Finance Minister, and at about 6.45 pm, 5 persons approached the car and took away the service revolver with 6 rounds of ammunitions from the possession of the petitioner. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Crimes ), East Khasi Hills, Shillong, into the said loss of service revolver and 6 rounds of ammunitions and pursuant to the report of the said preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 29.8.1994 passed by the Spectial Superintendent of Police, (SB) , Meghalaya. Thereafter, the Special Superintendent of Police, (SB), Meghalaya, by his order dated 16.9.15694 directed the petitioner to show cause under Section 7 of the police Act read with rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, part-III, and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as to why any of the penalties prescribed should not be inflicted on Mm for the charges mentioned therein. The charges mentioned in the said order dated 16.9.1994 were as follows :

(2.) At the hearing, Mr. NK Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner , submitted that the charges of remissness and cowardice against the petitioner without any allegation of supporting facts to show such remissness and cowardice on the part of the petitioner were vague and not definite. According to Mr. Deb, on this count alone the disciplinary proceedings as well as the impugned order of discharge are liable to be quashed. In support of this contention, Mr Deb relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sawai Sing vs. State of Rajas than, AIR 1986 SC 995, as well as the decision of this court in Brendra Kumar Hazarika Vs. State of Assam, 1989

(3.) Mr CP Upadhayay, learned State counsel, Meghalaya , on the other hand, submitted that there was no defect in the charges framed against the petitioner, and that due reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself against the charges and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution as well as rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual were duly complied with. He further submitted that the record would show that the petitioner fully participated in the enquiry before the Enquiring officer , and declined to cross-examine any of the witnesses. He further submitted that copy of the findings of the Enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner along with the second show-cause notice, and only thereafter the impugned order of discharge was passed after considering the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the second show -cause notice. Regarding orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings against Sri Rabindra Rabha and Sri Sengrang T. Sangma , he submitted that the record of disciplinary proceedings against the said two officers would be produced before the court for perusal.