ANANTA PATOWARY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondents in the Home Department of the Government of Assam including the Police Authorities.

(2.) The petitioner who was working as an ASI in the Assam Police Radio Organization (APRO) was arrested on 9/1/2004 in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 135/2004 under Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. Upon being in detention for more than 48 hours, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dtd. 13/1/2004 and a departmental proceeding was also drawn against him. The Dispur P.S. Case No. 135/2004 resulted in Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 193(K)/2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamrup, which was given a final consideration by the judgment dtd. 26/4/2005. By the said judgment, the petitioner was convicted under Sec. 20(II)(B) of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years and a fine of Rs.10,000.00. On an appeal being carried against the judgment of conviction in Crl. Appeal No. 90/2005, the Appellate Court in its judgment dtd. 9/5/2005 arrived at its conclusion that there was no evidence that the seized NDPS articles were sealed as required under the law and that the articles were under the control of certain other extraneous elements. Accordingly, the submission of the accused-appellant regarding serious doubt on the procedure was accepted by the Appellate Court and consequently, the conviction and sentence was set aside. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Appellate Court dtd. 9/5/2005 is extracted as below:

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstance, the order dtd. 16/6/2005 was passed in the disciplinary proceeding by which the petitioner was dismissed from service, against which he preferred a departmental appeal which was given its consideration by the Deputy Inspector of Police, CID, Assam and by the order dtd. 6/8/2011 the appeal stood dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner instituted WP(C) No. 5233/2011 which was given its final consideration by the order dtd. 11/8/2015, by which a conclusion was arrived that the charge No. 2 against the petitioner was neither examined by the enquiry officer nor by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority was directed to take a fresh decision regarding the reinstatement of the petitioner in the circumstance as was noted in the said judgment. It was further provided that till such decision is taken the petitioner shall be deemed to have been under suspension.