AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
[2.] Facts of the case in brief is that a Show-Cause Notice was issued to the th petitioner on 10.07.2024 by the Commandant, 27 Assam Police Battalion (respondent No. 4) requiring the petitioner to Show-Cause, as to why appropriate penalty under the Assam Police Manual should not be inflicted upon him following the charge based on the statement of allegation attached to the Show-Cause Notice. The statement of allegation was to the effect that one Sri Raushan Jalal, APS the then Adjutant was entrusted to conduct an enquiry into the authenticity of some railway warrants issued against Hav. Ranjit Sarmah, Hav. Ranjit Gowala, Hav. Uday Rajbongshi and Const. 269 Rajeswar Ray of the Unit. From the enquiry report submitted, it was revealed that the petitioner had used the names of these persons for issuing fake railway warrant for travelling from Guwahati to Buxar, Buxar to Guwahati, Balia to Guwahati and Buxar to Guwahati respectively using fake Reserve Inspector seal, while signing as Reserve Inspector on various occasions. The said act tantamount to gross indiscipline conduct, moral turpitude and gross misconduct, rendering him unfit to retain in Assam Police. Alongwith the allegations, a list of prosecution witnesses and the list of documents sought to be relied upon were also enclosed.
[3.] Pursuant to the Show-Cause Notice, an Enquiry Officer was appointed alongwith a Presenting Officer for conducting the departmental enquiry, vide Order, dated 22.08.2024.
[4.] Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report and the petitioner, while being given a copy of the enquiry report was asked to Show-Cause from the findings of the enquiry report, vide Communication, dated 10.01.2025. It was also indicated that the representation to be submitted by the petitioner should reach the disciplinary authority within a period of 10 (ten) days from the receipt of the Communication. Although the nd petitioner submitted his reply to the 2 Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.01.2025, the disciplinary authority decided to impose upon him a major penalty of stoppage of 2 (two) annual service increments from the next date of increment without cumulative effect, vide Order, dated 29.01.2025. Although the petitioner preferred an Appeal against the same, his Appeal came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority, vide Order, dated 10.04.2025 by upholding the Order passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
[5.] Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.07.2024, the petitioner was not furnished with the documents listed in the statement of allegation and therefore, he could not go through the documents and its contents and the same amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, which again amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and also violation of Article 311 of the nd Constitution of India. He further submits that alongwith the 2 Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.01.2025, the report of the Enquiry Officer was enclosed, but the evidence of the witnesses were not enclosed and thereby depriving the petitioner from submitting an effective reply to the enquiry report.
[6.] The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was also denied of having a Defence Assistant during the departmental proceedings. The learned counsel also submits that during the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner’s signature was obtained by force, as he was threatened that if he did not put his signature, he would be terminated from his service. The learned counsel therefore, submits that the impugned Order, dated 29.01.2025 as well as the appellate Order, dated 10.04.2025 should be set aside. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the cases of (i) Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. K.K. Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 494, and (ii) Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589.
[7.] Per contra, Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioner was supplied with all the relevant materials, which was indicated in the Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.01.2025 and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not given the relevant documents is not correct. She also submits that in fact, the petitioner had admitted to the charge when his statement was recorded on 11.01.2025. In this connection, the learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned Order, dated 29.01.2025, wherein at paragraph No. 2, it is provided that the petitioner admitted the whole act being done by him in his statement, dated 11.01.2025.
[8.] The learned State Counsel has also produced the departmental records and she has read out the statement of the petitioner, dated 11.01.2025 to the Court. Although the same is recorded in vernacular, but the learned State Counsel has translated the same to the Court. The learned State Counsel has also denied the averment of the petitioner that he was denied the chance of cross-examining the witnesses. She submits that as per the records, it is clear that such opportunity was given to the petitioner and he simply declined to cross-examine the witnesses. She therefore, submits that the averment of the petitioner in this regard is not true, since he was given the opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses, if he so desires.
[9.] Referring to paragraph No. 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the learned State Counsel submits that the State respondents deny the averment of the petitioner that he was not given the chance to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. She submits that there were 5 (five) numbers of prosecution witnesses named in the Show-Cause Notice and 5 (five) documents sought to be relied upon by the prosecution. The same was duly received by the petitioner on 26.07.2024 and therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that he did not receive the list of documents is unfounded. She also submits that the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner, enabling him to make a representation and there was no requirement on the part of the respondent authorities to furnish him documents and depositions of witnesses alongwith the enquiry report, since the petitioner himself has participated in the enquiry proceedings. In fact, what has been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer has already been mentioned in the Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.07.2024. She thus submits that despite the admission on the part of the petitioner to the charges, departmental proceeding was conducted and the charges proved. Considering the nature of misconduct committed by him, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed is disproportionate. She thus submits that the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed.
[10.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and have also perused the materials available on record.
[11.] The petitioner has primarily taken the stand that he has not been given sufficient opportunity during the departmental proceedings. The fact that the petitioner has admitted to the charge and to the allegation is discernible from the records, which was read out and translated by the State Counsel. Further, the impugned Order, dated 29.01.2025 also provides that the petitioner in his statement, dated 11.01.205 has admitted to the whole act done by him. The petitioner has also taken the stand that he has been denied of cross-examining the departmental witnesses. However, the same has also been established to be not true from the records produced by the learned State Counsel, since the petitioner himself had clearly denied to cross-examine the witnesses. The Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.07.2024 also provides for 5 (five) departmental witnesses to be prosecution witnesses to proof the charge alongwith list of 5 (five) documents sought to be relied upon. It is the specific stand taken by the department that the petitioner was furnished with such documents in their affidavit-in-opposition.
[12.] The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Punjab National Bank (supra) to contend that he was not furnished with the relevant documents prior to imposition of the penalty. The said decision, however, is with regard to non-supply of enquiry report, which is not the case in the present writ petition. The petitioner was indeed supplied with the enquiry report and to which he has submitted his reply as well.
[13.] Further, the case of Union of India (supra) with the given facts of the present case is also found to be not applicable, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been supplied with the documents sought to be relied upon, which can be seen from the Show-Cause Notice, dated 10.07.2024.
[14.] In so far as the contention of the petitioner that he was not given a Defence Assistant, the same has not been disputed by the respondent authorities. It, however, appears that the petitioner had not asked for a Defence Assistant during the enquiry proceedings, and the non-appointment of a Defence Assistant per se cannot be the reason to vitiate the departmental proceedings under the given facts and circumstances of the case since the petitioner has admitted to his misconduct and that he has not been able to show that prejudice has been caused to him. As already stated, the petitioner rather himself had admitted of having committed the misconduct in his recorded statement, dated 11.01.2025.
[15.] Under this circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner for non-appointment of a Defence Assistant. Thus upon having regard to the case in its entirety, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be said to have a legitimate grievance and accordingly, the writ petition is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. No cost.