TABA TAZA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed against and arises out of an order dated 9.3.95 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (W), Arunachal Pradesh imposing the penalty of removal from service of the petitioner which was finally upheld by an order in appeal dated 15.1.96 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Arunachal Pradesh on 13.3.78. By order dated 19.8.83 petitioner was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police Arunachal Pradesh. While petitioner was working as such in the Sangram Police Station vide order dated 20.8.92 petitioner was transferred to Ziro, Reserve along with others. SIT Lailang was posted in his place. The order mentioned that SIT Lailang was to hand over his MTO charge to RI Ziro and to move to Sangram immediately. The transfer and posting of the above persons was communicated by a telegraphic message directing the Officer - in -Charge of the Police Station to proceed to his new place of posting after handing over the charges to the concerned officers. There was one more W.T. message by which the Officer -in -Charge was reminded vide order dated 1.9.92. They were instructed to release the concerned officer before the Panchayat Election. The Officer -in -Charge of the Police Station were ordered to confirm action. According to the Petitioner in the absence of reliever he could not hand over the charge. At last he handed over the charge to the Head Constable of the Sangram Police Station, Sri J.C. Gogoi since no reliever was sent to abide the order of superior authority to join in the new place of posting. The petitioner reaching on 13.9.92 at Ziro submitted his joining report at the Police Reserve and took over the charges of the Reserve Inspector in the afternoon. Superintendent of Police, Ziro on receipt of the joining report of the petitioner refused to accept the same and directed the former Reserve Inspector not to hand over the Charges until and unless the petitioner goes back to Sangram Police Station to hand over formal charges of the Police Station to his reliever. By order dated 12.10.92 the Superintendent of Police, Ziro directed the Officer concerned not to release his pay and allowances of the petitioner with immediate effect. According to the petitioner since then his pay and allowances were held up. Petitioner thereafter applied for earned leave and left for home. During the period of earned leave, petitioner received W.T. message from S.P, Ziro on 7.1.93 directing to report at Headquarter within 7(seven) days. Petitioner thereafter was served with a notice dated 11.6.93 under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 read with Section 7 of the Act. The memorandum was accompanied by the statement of Articles of charges, statement of imputation of alleged gross misconduct and list of documents and list of witnesses. The article of charge as well as statement of imputation is cited below:

(2.) In the writ Petition, the Petitioner contended mainly the issue of violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner contended that the Enquiry Officer and for that matter the Disciplinary Authority also reached its finding on materials without indicating the same and thereby denying the Petitioner an opportunity to defend the case. According to the petitioner, no oral evidence was recorded in the presence of the petitioner, nor examined any witnesses or proved/cited any document as such. The enquiry officer acted on materials behind his back without enabling the charged officer to question the veracity and authenticity of the materials those were relied. Petitioner also questioned the quantum of punishment as disproportionate and arbitrary.

(3.) The Respondents seriously contested the case and submitted its affidavit denying and disputing the allegation made by the Petitioner. According to the Respondents the petitioner, belonging to a disciplinary force remained away from his duties without proper intimation to the authority and thereby transgressed the rule of discipline. Petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself and it was for him to await the opportunity that was afforded to him. Petitioner finally appeared and examined himself as witnesses on his behalf and the materials those were relied by the authority were of admitted documents, therefore question of giving him further opportunity to question the veracity does not arise.