GODAK TAJA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a Head Constable in Arunachal Pradesh Armed Police has approached this Court, with the help of the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ/writs setting aside and quashing the impugned order, dated 29.01.2001 (Annexure H to the writ petition), whereby the penalty of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect for a period. of two years has been imposed on the petitioner following a disciplinary proceeding.

(2.) In a narrow compass, the petitioner's case may be put as follows: The petitioner joined as a Constable in the Armed Police in the year 1998 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head constable vide order dated 17.04.93 and at the relevant time, the petitioner stood posted at the Battalion Head Quarter of 1st Arunachal Pradesh Armed Police Battalion, Chimpu. The petitioner was awarded commendation certificate in recognition of his excealent performance of duties vide order dated 17. 10.96. (Annexure D to the writ petition). The Petitioner was placed under suspension by his commandant vide order dated 20.08.2000 (Annexure E to the writ petition) and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the allegation that the petitioner had attempted to beat a shop-keeper, Pakrul Islam, with a piece of stick and broke the glass of the shop keeper's pan shop. The petitioner was accordingly served with a memorandum containing article of charge and statement of imputation of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his written statement in defence denying and disputing the allegations levelled against him and upon regularly drawn proceeding, he was found guilty of the charge, where the was, in fact, dissuaded by the Enquiry Officer from cross-examining the witnesses and he was not afforded effective opportunity of hearing. The finding of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and penalty, as indicated herein- above, was imposed on the petitioner by the impugned order, dated 29.01.2001, aforementioned. The petitioner, then, preferred filed an appeal on 08.03.2001, but the appeal was also turned down. The disciplinary authority, thus, as well as the appellate authority acted mechanically and without application of mind. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking the reliefs indicated hereinabove.

(3.) The respondents have contested this case by filing their affidavit-in-opposition, their case being, briefly stated, thus: The disciplinary proceeding was conducted by observing principles of natural justice. The petitioner, in his statement made before the Enquiry Officer, admitted, in effect, the charge levelled against him. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity ofc hearing and of cross-examining the witnesses at the time of the enquiry. The penalty awarded to the petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the charge. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on materials on record and the respondents acted legally in accepting the findings.