BHUPEN BORAH Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this application, the petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector of Police under the Department of Home, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ/ writs setting aside the impugned order, dated 30.6.92(Annexure -IV to the writ petition) whereby penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for the period of three years without cumulative effect and postponement of increment of pay during the period of punishment has been imposed on the petitioner following a departmental proceeding drawn against the petitioner.

(2.) In nutshell, petitioner's case may be stated as follows: The petitioner, on the basis of a transfer order, joined at Pasighat, on 5.11.90, in the capacity of Sub-Inspector of Police. Before his transfer to Pasighat, the petitioner had, suddenly, fallen ill due to his posting at a place of high altitude. The petitioner had accordingly approached the respondent No. 3, and, upon examination of medical certificates and petitioner's representation, the respondent No. 3, namely I.G.P., Arunachal Pradesh, posted the petitioner to Pasighat in East Siang District. Soon after joining of his duties at Pasighat, Sri P.Bagra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pasighat, who was holding the charge of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Pasighat, made an order, on 5.11.90(Annexure-l to the writ petition) transferring the petitioner from Pasighat to Tuting Police Station, which is located at a very high altitude area, and the petitioner was accordingly released. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No. 5, namely, Superintendent of Police, East Siang, Pasighat, informing him the reason of his transfer to Pasighat, but Sri Bagra aforementioned, who was holding the charge of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Pasighat, rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 6.11.90(Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The petitioner, then, submitted an application to Sri Bagra requesting him to allow the petitioner to proceed to police headquarters to meet the respondent No. 3 for redressal of his grievances, but this prayer too was rejected without assigning any reason therefor. The petitioner, then, tried to receive free Air lift from Pasighat to Tuting, i.e., his new place of posting. As the petitioner could not avail free air lift from Pasighat to Turing he left for Tuting via Mohanbari after sending requisite information in this regard to the respondent No. 5. The petitioner arrived at Mohanbari on 16.11.90 and submitted a prayer to DDST, Mohanbari, for free air lift to Turing, but, suddenly, the petitioner received a message that his mother had fallen seriously ill. In such compelling circumstances, the petitioner came to his home in the district of Sonitpur and found his mother in unconscious state. As the petitioner got involved in arranging proper treatment for his mother, he could communicate to the respondent No. 5 only on 5.12.90 regarding his failure to join Tuting Police Station. This apart, the petitioner also suffered from colitis, headache, bleeding from nostrils, his case was diagnosed as a case of "sinus T.B." and he had to remain under treatment of ENT Specialist at Tezpur Civil Hospital. The petitioner, while at home, received notice from the respondent No. 5 directing the petitioner to join his place of posting at Tuting within 3 days. Despite representations made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4 and 5 for changing his place of posting on the ground that Tuting is a high altitude area, petitioner's repeated requests were not acceded to rather, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for his alleged unauthorized absence from duty. For the disciplinary proceeding so drawn, Sri P. Bagra aforementioned was appointed as enquiry officer. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, Sri Bagra submitted his enquiry report and vide order dated 30.6.92(Annexure-IV to the writ petition), the disciplinary authority, namely, respondent No. 4 accepted the enquiry report and inflicted penalty as hereinabove described. The appointment of Sri Bagra, however, as Enquiry Officer was highly unjust and unfair inasmuch as it was Sri Bagra, who had posted the petitioner to Tuting and whose order aforementioned, the petitioner is said to have violated by remaining absent from duty. However, this aspect of the matter has been ignored not only by the disciplinary authority, but also by authorities superior to the disciplinary authority. Feeling aggrieved by the penalty so imposed, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 3.8.92, but the same was turned down vide order dated 2.7.93(Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner, then, submitted an application for review of the penalty to the respondent No. 2, namely, Commissioner, Department of Home to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, but this review application too was turned down vide order, dated 15.6.99. The report of the enquiry officer was never furnished to the petitioner, which was highly illegal and this lapse, on the part of the enquiry officer, is in itself sufficient to interfere with the penalty imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly has approached this Court seeking reliefs as hereinabove indicated.

(3.) The respondents have contested this case by filing their affidavit-in-opposition, their case being, briefly stated, thus: The petitioner remained absent from duty for a period of almost one year without any authority of law. The disciplinary proceeding drawn against him under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, was held in accordance with the provisions contained therein and there was no malafide. During the course of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner did not raise any objection to the appointment of Sri Bagra as enquiry officer and did not ask for any change in this regard. The enquiry conducted was fair and just. As the findings of the enquiry were supported by materials on record, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings and imposed the penalty, which was commensurate with the gravity of the charge and it is for this reason that the authorities superior the disciplinary authority upheld the penalty imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner's posting to Pasighat was not on medical ground, but in the interest of public service. The petitioner was transferred to East Siang District and it was for the district Superintendent of Police to decide where the petitioner would be posted within the East Siang District. The petitioner was posted to Tuting Police Station, because the same was functioning without an officer. Hence, petitioner's posting to Tuting was on account of exigency of service. The writ petition is without any merit and the same may be dismissed.