(1.) Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the two cases. The State respondents are represented by the learned Government Advocate Ms. H.M. Phukan.
(2.) In their reply to the show-cause-notice, the petitioners stated that they were not entrusted with the keys of armoury which were kept by the Arms Branch Inspector (ABI) or the Reserve Officer and in their absence by the Head Armourer, Habildar Deepak Muktiar. Moreover neither the Constable nor the Lance Naik were made custodian of the armoury stores and their duty was limited to clean and issue weapons on instruction of their superior, during their stint in the armoury. But considering the replies to be unsatisfactory, an enquiry was ordered and the D.S.P. (HQ) Morigaon conducted the enquiry against the 3 charged policeman including the Head Armourer.
(3.) In the proceeding, 5 witnesses were presented by the prosecution but the delinquents didn't avail of the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. Moreover no defence witnesses produced by them. On the basis of purported consideration of the material evidence, the inquiry officer concluded that the charge of gross misconduct and negligence of duties was proved against the delinquents.