AKANGKOKBA AO Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner joined service as Constable in April, 1983 in the scale of (sic) pay of Rs. 400 - Rs. 690 P.M. He received necessary training at Chumukedima Police Training Centre. After putting in 8 (eight) years of service, by Memorandum dated 28th November, 1991 issued by the Commandant, 3rd NAP, the Petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 20th November, 1991. That order of dismissal has been impugned in the present Petition on the grounds, inter alia, that before the order of dismissal was issued no show -cause notice was given to the Petitioner, that no Articles of charges were framed against the Petitioner and that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted against the Petitioner. There was no order of suspension (sic) contemplation of departmental proceedings. The Petitioner's contention (sic) that there is a very serious violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard before the order of dismissal was issued.

(2.) AN allegation was brought against the Petitioner that on 9.11.91 he was caught red -handed while he was stealing a hen/chicken from the house of one Mrs. Nimo Khemnungan. The aforesaid order of dismissal reads:

(3.) ON careful reading of the above quoted provisions of Rule 9. it is crystal clear that definite charge on the basis of allegations must be framed Such charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based shall also be communicated in writing to the Government servant and shall be required to submit within a specified period, a written statement of his defense. The Petitioner had no such opportunity to file written reply inasmuch as no Articles of charges were furnished upon him The Rule also contemplates that if the charges are denied, an enquiry officer should be appointed to enquire into the allegations and a report should be prepared by such enquiry officer. The Petitioner contends in para 8 of this writ Petition that allegation is totally false and that such allegation has been made out of some ulterior motive. The allegation is that altogether the Petitioner had stolen thirty one chickens and one dog from the unit family line.