JAYANTA HASAMSA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mrinmay Khataniar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. The petitioner herein was serving as a Constable in Assam Police since 1985 in the Special Branch at Guwahati. In 1994, he was transferred to North Cachar Hills, Haflong as an Arms Branch Constable. During his tenure at N.C. Hills District, the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, N.C. Hills District, Haflong, vide communication dated 20.12.2001 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner as to why any appropriate penalties should not be inflicted upon him for his gross negligence and remiss in duty as he was found absent from his duty on 19.10.2001 and 23.11.2001. But, with the said show cause notice dated 20.12.2001 to the petitioner, except the statement of allegation, no list of witnesses or documents were enclosed or annexed.

(2.) The petitioner not being aware of the charge made against him, he made several request to the concerned Disciplinary Authority to furnish the list of documents on the basis of which the charges against him were sought to be proved. Even then the petitioner without all those materials submitted his show cause reply on 02.01.2002. In his said reply, the petitioner submitted that on 19.10.2001, he was placed on Magazine Guard Duty from 8:00 am onwards and after his sentry duty between 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm was over and after flag down, with permission from his Commander Sri Dayal Das, he in the evening between 6:00 pm to 6:45 pm went out to take his meal in a nearby hotel and during said period of his absence, an inspection was done where he was found to be absent. In the said replay, the petitioner also stated that on 23.11.2001, his wife and his daughter fell sick and the petitioner being the only other member of his family, took them for treatment and after their medical examinations, dropped them at his home and rushed to report for his duty and duly reach for the afternoon role call at 2:00 pm and then he remained present for evening role call at 7:00 pm. The petitioner stated that for the first time he was found to be absent from his duty on that day for a genuine ground and as such he prayed for exoneration from the charges.

(3.) The petitioner also submitted that on the setting of the inquiry that was held for a day only, the authorities produced 3 witnesses before the Enquiry Officer Sri S.K. Dey, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), respondent No. 4, in which the petitioner was asked some questions and his statement was recorded. However, the authority did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses adduced by the authority and further he was neither informed about his valuable right to cross-examine the official witnesses nor he was given any opportunity to defend himself by a defence representative/co-worker and therefore, he was deprived of his valuable right to defend him properly and affectively.