YOMKA SORA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondent authorities.

(2.) THE material facts, in short , for the purpose of disposal of this case are as follows: the writ-petitioner was appointed as Constable in the year 1988 and was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 1997. While he was serving so in the establishment of 2nd AAPBn, a group of Head Constables, Naik and Constables including the petitioner, were nominated and directed to proceed to Harchura (Assam) for undergoing training in field tactics of Jungle Warfare and Counter Insurgency Operations w. e. f. 07. 05. 2007-02. 06. 2007. At that relevant point of time, the petitioner was facing some personal difficulties as his wife deserted him leaving behind 4 minor children with him and he was not in a position to move for the aforesaid training and therefore, he made a representation dated 25. 06. 2007 through proper channel before the Commandant, 2nd Bn BHQ, Aalo, and requested to exempt him from undergoing the said training. The said request on being rejected, the petitioner approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Bn), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar (Respondent No. 3 herein), by filing a representation dated 29. 06. 2007 for cancellation of his nomination for the said Counter Insurgency (C. I.) Course but no decision in this regard, was communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, a Memorandum dated 18. 07. 2007 under No. DE-012/2ndbn. /ys/07 was served upon the writ-petitioner stating therein that an inquiry is proposed to be held and directed him to submit, within 10 days, a written statement of his defence to the inquiry authority. The Disciplinary Authority appointed one Sri Reli Loyi, A/c, 2nd Bn, Aalo, as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 19. 07. 2007. The writ-petitioner submitted his written statement on 30. 07. 2007 to the respondent Commandant. The inquiry proceeding was thus initiated and after completion of the said inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 02. 08. 2007. The Inquiry Officer came to a conclusion that the writ-petitioner did not proceed with the party for training at Harchura, Assam, and remained absent without any intimation and permission of the authority and the same has been proved in the inquiry proceeding. On the basis of the said Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23. 08. 2007, imposed upon the petitioner penalty of reduction in rank from Head Constable to Naik for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect and after expiry of 3 years, he could be restored back to the rank of Head Constable subject to improvement of his conduct, performance and discipline. It was also ordered that the petitioner shall earn future normal increment of Naik during his reverted period. On receipt of the aforesaid penalty order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal dated 29. 09. 2007 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Bn), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, but the same was rejected vide order dated 04. 12. 2007 upholding the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The writ-petitioner is thus, before this Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 23. 08. 2007 whereby penalty of reduction in rank, as aforesaid, was awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and also order dated 04. 12. 2007 whereby the petitioner's statutory appeal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Bn ).

(3.) MOREOVER , it is submitted by Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Inquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion that the misconduct alleged against the writ-petitioner stood proved without considering the relevant materials on record, particularly without considering his first representation dated 25. 06. 2007 submitted before the respondent Commandant and the second representation dated 29. 06. 2007 submitted before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Bn), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, wherein all the genuine difficulties of the writ-petitioner were apprised and a request for exemption from the said training was also made therein. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that it is not correct to say that the petitioner remained absent from the aforesaid training without any intimation and/or without any authority. The learned counsel further contends that this fact has been recorded in the findings of the Inquiry Officer wherein it was also recorded that the petitioner's request for such exemption was rejected by the Commandant, 2nd Bn, Aalo, and necessary order from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Itanagar, in this regard, was awaited.