KAGUM NOMUK Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. C. Baruah, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the state respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as S. I. in the establishment of 2nd APP. Bn. and at the relevant time he was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Miao Police Station in Changlang District. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charges, amongst other, of injuring his wife by firing from his service revolver. A memorandum along with the article of charges was served upon him by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (E), Arunachal Pradesh, vide letter dated 8. 3. 1997. Thereafter, by an order dated 8. 3. 1997 issued by the Deputy Director General of Police (E) appointed one Shri J. Tayeng, Dy. S. P. of Changlang as the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The inquiry was conducted accordingly by the Enquiry Officer.

(3.) MR . C. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry proceeding as conducted by the respondent authorities are vitiated as no "presenting Officer" was appointed for conducting the inquiry as required under Rule 14 (5) (c) of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" only) and the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the allegations/charges brought against the petitioner. Mr. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel also submits that the appointment of a "presenting Officer" is not only a mere formality but it is a mandatory requirement provided under the Statutory Rules and it is the established law that the disciplinary proceeding conducted without appointing the "presenting Officer" would vitiate the entire inquiry proceeding and the punishment awarded after such inquiry is liable to be quashed as illegal.