Abu Zubain vs Superintendent of Police Bellary and Others

The petition coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to Respondents is disposed of by the following order:

The petitioner joined the Police Department as Constable in the State of Karnataka. On 21-5-1977 he was issued with a charge memo under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). ''The charge was to the effect that the petitioner deliberately failed'' to identify certain accused in a Sessions trial. That sessions trial was the result of an attack by certain persons in Thekkalakota village of Bellary district. In that attack a, police Sub-Inspector received severe head injuries and "later succumbed to the injuries and died. The petitioner gave explanation to the charge memo on 4-6-1977. In the explanation he, requested for a copy of the C.P.I., FCD., F.I.R., C.P.''s report 59C/77 dated 20-4-1977, copy of the statement recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, Bellary, a copy of the judgment of the District and Sessions Judge, Bellary and a copy of the statement recorded, under Section 162 Cr.P.C. He further stated that on receipt of the above records, he proposed to have a police friend to assist him in his defence. He submitted a further explanation on 21-9-1977 stating that he had received all the documents except the copy of the judgment of the Hon''ble Court and a copy of the statement under Section 162 Cr. P.C., and also requested in the said explanation that the Enquiry Officer should be changed as he had not permitted the petitioner to engage the services of a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police to assist him in his defence.

The enquiry in respect of the charges on the petitioner was continued and he was found guilty of the charges and a report to that effect was submitted to the 1st Respondent by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, namely, the 1st Respondent accepting the findings of the Enquiry Authority awarded the punishment of dismissal from service by its order dated 25-9-1978. Aggrieved by the said order of the Superintendent of Police, Bellary district, the petitioner filed an appeal to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Range, Gulbarga, to which division he belonged on the relevant date. The appeal also came to be dismissed with a modification in the matter of awarding punishment. The punishment of dismissal was modified to one of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the, orders of the 1st and 2nd respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief on the following two grounds:

(1) that the enquiry was vitiated because in as much as a copy of the judgment of the Court of the District & Sessions Judge and a copy of the statement recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C., were not furnished to him; and (2) that the 1st Respondent ought to have changed the enquiry Officer because of the bias displayed by him in dis-allowing the retired Dy. Superintendent of Police to defend the petitioner at the enquiry proceedings.

The 1st ground urged should not detain me long. The two documents were part of the Court records and it was not incumbent on the 1st Respondent to furnish the same to the petitioner as the petitioner himself could have obtained certified copies therer-of directly from the Court. And further, the view taken by the Enquiry Authority that those documents had really no relevance to the charge levelled against the petitioner should also be accepted. The petitioner cannot derive any assistance from what is really a baseless ground to attack the impugned orders.

In so far as the second ground is concerned the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Enquiry Authority was baised against the petitioner solely on the ground of his refusing to permit a retired Police Officer to aid the petitioner in the enquiry. Under the relevant Rules the petitioner is entitled to have the services oran officer friend who is in the police force. A retired officer cannot fall into that category and the petitioner and the like of him who are facing departmental disciplinary proceedings cannot engage the services of a retired officer. Merely because the Enquiry Officer strictly complied with the Rule it cannot be inferred that he was biased. Therefore, this ground also is without any merit.

The petitioner should be content with the punishment of dismissal which has been reduced as one of compulsory retirement which gave him certain financial benefits by way of pension.

The impugned orders of the 1st and 2nd Respondents do not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference by this Court.

The petition is dismissed without rule being issued.

The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.

There will be no order as to costs.