LEKH RAJ RANA Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three civil rules raise the common question of law and facts and as such as agreed to by the learned counsel of both sides, they are taken up for hearing together. I have heard Mr. BX. Sharma, learned counsel for Petitioners in all Civil Rules and Mr. R. P.-Sarma, learned Counsel for respondents.

(2.) The brief facts are as follows; The petitioners herein are police personnels and they are now working in Aninachal Pradesh Police. On 8.3.91 an incident of hank robbery took place at about 1230 hrs. at the Itanagar Branch of State Bank of India. The robbers took away a sum of Rs. 26,50,000/- from the bank Thereafter, the petitioners were placed under suspension and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated us against each of them. The proceeding wus initiated under Rule 14 of the Central Civ.il Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 (hereinafter called as 'rules') and Section 7 of the Police Act. The charges against the officer in CR 3523/94 is available at page 28 and that is quoted below : "Article-1 : That SI L.R. Rana (u/s) of 1st APAP BN, Itanagar while posted at Police Station, Itanagar and present at PS on 8.3.91 during the time of bank dacoity at SBI Itanagar Branch failed to mobilise the available PS staff and to take effective steps to take any action to prevent the commission of the dacoity intercept and capture the dacoits and as a result of which the dacoits could not be intercepted. He did not lake any steps at PS for firing upon the dacoits and capturing them. He rushed out of the PS without arms knowing well the a dacoity is in progress. This act on the pan of SI L.R. Rana as a senior SI next to OC, present at the time of information of dacoity was communicated and was received, amount to lack of supervision and dereliction of duty. Article-II : State of imputation of dereliction of duty in suport of article of charge framed against SI LR Rana (u/s) of 1st APAP BN, Itanagar. Article-I : On 8.3.91 at 1228 hrs. one telephone information about commission of bank dacoity in SBI Itanagar Branch was received by SI L.R. Rana at Itanagar Police Station while L.R. Rana was posted at Police Station Itanagar. On receipt of the information SI S. Regon, the then OC and Inspr. C.B. Chetri the then CI (P) Itanagar rushed separately towards the SBI Itanagar. SI L.R. Rana as a senior SI next to OC present in the PS did not mobilise the available PS staff for taking effective steps to prevent the commission of the docoity and capture the dacoits. He did not take any steps to coordinate with others and utilise the armed sentry of the PS, present on duty, for firing upon the dacoits and capturing them. He rushed out of the PS towards scene of crime without any arms knowing well that a dacoity is in progress. Thus the charge." The charges in CR No. 3524/94 is available at page 26 and that is quoted below: "Article I : That SI S. Regon (u/s) of 1st APAP BN, Itanagar while functioning as Officer-in-charge of Police Station, Itanagar and present at Police Station, Itanagar on 8.3.91 during the time of bank dacoity at SBI Itanagar Branch failed to mobilise the available PS staff and to take effective steps to prevent the commission of the dacoity and capture the dacoits, as a result of which the dacoits could not be intercepted, and captured. Even though he was armed with weapon at the scene of crime, he could not fire upon the despardos. He got frightened and ran for his own safety. This act on the pan of SI S. Regon as OC of the Police Station, Itanagar amounts to lack of supervision, cowardice in performance of his duty and dereliction of duty. Annexures II : State of imputation of dereliction of duty in support of article of charge framed against SI S. Regon (u/s) 1st APAP BN, Itanagar. Article-I : On 8.3.91 at 1228 hrs. one telephone information was received by SI L.R. Rana at Police Station, Itanagar about commission of dacoity at SBI Itanagar Branch and SI S. Regon the then OC PS Itanagar immediately informed about it by SI L.R. Rana. But SI S. Regon did not mobilise the available PS staff for preventing the commission of the dacoity, interception and capture the dacnits. On receipt of the information, he rushed to the place of occurance alone with a revolver. As he rushed out separately there was no chance left for coordination at that point of time. He also did not leave any instruction behind regarding detailing The staff present in the police station on various duties and there was, therefore, lot of commotion at the police station and knowbody know what was required to be done. Thus the dacoits were able to cany out be dacoily and flee away without any resistance from police. Even though the SIS. Regon was armed and present at the scene of crime at the time of commission of the dacoity he could not fire back as a reply to the firings from the dacoits. He got frightened and ran for his own safety. Thus the charge." The charge against officer in CR 3525/. 94 is available at pages 25-26 and that is quoted below :

(3.) Thereafter, written statement was filed by all these three officers denying the charges. There was a common enquiry report by Shri S.N. Srivastava, SP(HQ) and he submitted his report on 10.12,91. Against Inspector C.B. Chetri (the petitioner in CR 3525/94) the findings are as follows ; "(a) Even though Inspr. C.B. Chetri had tried to raceout the statement of PW 1 the available evidence shows that there was loss of coordination in between the officers. Inspr. Chetri being the seniormost officer present at PS alongwith other 2 SIs should have ensured the separate sphere of work among him and the 2 SIs and also among other police personnel present. (b) To conclude, Inps. C.B. Chetri should have ensured that a system exists, but his lapse is some what diluted by the fact that the duty was of supervisory nature which is also exercised by many senior officer subject to the nature and extract of their supervision." The findings as against SI, S. Regon is as follows ;