BHABA KALITA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petitioner, who has been dismissed from service after an enquiry into the charges levelled against him, has instituted the present proceedings challenging the aforesaid order of dismissal. An order of the appellate authority confirming the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority, is another aspect of the challenge in the present proceeding.

(2.) A memorandum of charges was brought against the petitioner on 25.10.2000 alleging that on 29.8.2000 at about 21.30 hours, the writ petitioner under the influence of alcohol had assaulted two other constables of the C.I.S.F. in which organisation the petitioner was working. It was alleged that as a result of the aforesaid assault, the two other constables were injured and hospitalised. The writ petitioner was charged with indiscipline/misbehaviour in respect of the aforesaid incident and was asked to show cause as to why he should not be punished. The writ petitioner showed cause and the authority not being satisfied, decided to have an enquiry. An enquiry Officer was appointed and as it now appears, in course of the enquiry, as many as 11 witnesses were examined in support of the charges. Besides, a large number of documents were also brought on record in support of the charges. The writ petitioner/delinquent examined two defence witnesses in his favour and at the conclusion of the enquiry, for the reasons cited, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 20.1.2001 holding the charges against the writ petitioner to be proved. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and by his order dated 6.4.2001 imposed the punishment of removal from service on the writ petitioner. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner against the punishment imposed was dismissed by an order of the appellate authority dated 18.7.2001. It is in the aforesaid facts that the instant writ petition has been filed calling into question the actions and orders of the authority in imposing on the writ petitioner the punishment of removal from service.

(3.) THE arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner would go to show that the primary thrust of the challenge made is to the effect that the report of enquiry, which has been accepted and which has formed the basis for the impugned action, is perverse, being opposed to the weight of materials on record and no punishment ought to have been imposed on the writ petitioner on the basis of the findings recorded in course of the enquiry. Specifically, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that P.W. -10 examined in support of the charges, in his deposition before the enquiry officer, has testified that the writ petitioner delinquent was engaged in a fight with one of the persons injured, which would go to show that there was mutual assault between the writ petitioner and the persons, who allegedly suffered injuries. The findings of the enquiry officer that the petitioner was in an intoxicated condition, it is argued, is not borne out by the materials on record. That apart, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the evidence of the defence witnesses, who were examined in the case and who supported the writ petitioner, have been ignored by the enquiry officer while coming to his impugned findings. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kuldip Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors., reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 has contended that as no cogent ground has been assigned for ignoring the evidence of the defence witnesses, the enquiry report as a whole stands vitiated, the automatic consequence of which would be to render the punishment null and void. Alternatively, it has been argued by the Mr. Chauhdhury that even if this Court is inclined to hold that the report of the enquiry officer is valid, the materials disclosed by the said report would go to show that there was a mutual exchange/fight between the writ petitioner and the persons who allegedly suffered injury and the writ petitioner himself was hospitalised on account of the injuries suffered by him in the course of such fight. If the writ petitioner is to be blamed, the persons, who allegedly suffered injuries are to be euqally blamed and in that view of the matter, the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate warranting interference of this Court.