Alauddin Majumder vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. A.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

[2] The petitioner, while working as the Sub-Inspector of Police at Kamalpur Police Station had arrested one Benu Sukla Baidya, brought to that person to Kamalpur Police Station for custody in connection with Kamalpur P.S. case No.21 of 2013 under Sections 457/380 of the IPC. The said arrestee was given police remand for 5[five] days w.e.f. 22.04.2013. The petitioner, in the course of his official duty, took out the said arrestee from the lockup for purpose of interrogation in the CIPA Project room, located in the first floor of Kamalpur P.S. According to the petitioner, at that point of time, the said arrestee requested the petitioner to provide him water and the petitioner went down to the ground floor to fetch water keeping the accused in the said room. When he came back to the room for interrogation, he found the arrestee was hanging from a ceiling fan. Then, the arrestee was shifted to the GBP hospital, Agartala considering his state of health. Thereafter, the arrestee was shifted to Kolkata for better treatment. During that treatment, the said arrestee died. Then, one Anima Sukla Baidya, wife of the arrestee filed an ejahar to Kamalpur P.S. under Sections 323/201/34 and Section 302 of the IPC. The police, on completion of the investigation, the CID filed the final report clearly holding that the arrestee committed suicide. Subsequently, Anima Sukla Baidya filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.151 of 2013 seeking compensation from the respondents [the State of Tripura & Ors.] for custodial death of her husband. A division bench of this court by the judgment dated 30.06.2014 dismissed the said writ petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate suit for redress. However, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide DP No.03 of 2013 dated 07.05.2013 on the charge for misconduct and negligence of duty. For purpose of reference, the articles of charge as leveled against the petitioner are reproduced hereunder:

"STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGISNT SI[UB] ALAUDDIN MAJUMDER & H/C[UB] SUJIT DEBNATH, BOTH OF DHALAI DISTRICT IN C/W DHALAI DISTRICT DP NO.03/2013, DATED 07.05.2013

ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.I

SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder & H/C[UB] Sujit Debnath are charged for gross misconduct in that on the night intervening 22/23.04.2013 at about 0120 hours while H/C [UB] Sujit Debnath was detailed as Duty Officer of Kamalpur P.S., SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder took out Shri Benu Sukla Baidya (942), who was under police remand for 5 days w.e.f. 22.04.2013 in c/w Kamalpur P.S. case No.21/2013, U/S-457/380 IPC, from the lockup and interrogated in the CIPA project room located in the first floor of Kamalpur PS building. After few minutes SI[UB] Alauddin Majumer came out from the said room to arrange drinking water for the accused person leaving him alone and without taking any precautionary measures. After few minutes when he came back to the room he notice that Benu Sukla Baidya was hanging from the ceiling fan with the help of his own long pant although he was brought, down by the SI and HC sujit Debnath immediately. The incident could take place due to gross negligence on the part of SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder and HC[UB] Sujit Debnath.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.II

SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder & H/C[UB] Sujit Debnath are charged for gross misconduct in that their namges figured as the principal FIR named accused persons in c/w Kamalpur P.S. Case No.34/2013, U/s- 325/201/34 of IPC on the complaint lodged by Smt. Anima Sukla Baidya W/O- Benu Sukla Baidya of Manikbhander, P.S. Kamalpur. Thereafter they were arrested by the IO of the Case on 01.05.2013 & 30.04.2013 respectively and subsequently they released on bail. This amounts to gross misconduct on their part.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.III

SI(UB) Alauddin Majumder is charged for gross misconduct that he did not arrange medical examination of Benu Sukla Baidya soon after his arrest as per requirement of section 54 Cr.P.C. Amendment Act , 2008, Act No.5 of 2009 which is unbecoming on his part s arresting police officer.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.IV

SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder is charged for gross misconduct that while he was under suspension he remained unauthorized absent from his prescribed HQrs. i.e. Jawaharnagar Police Lines after overstaying on 23 hours station leave w.e.f. 28.04.2013 till date without any permission and even intimation to his competent authority."

[3] The petitioner has by filing the written statement disputed the charge. Before issuance of the said memorandum of charge, there was a preliminary inquiry conducted by the respondent No.5. The preliminary inquiry report dated 23.04.2013 [Annexure-D to the writ petition] was filed to the respondent No.4. Having considered that report as it appears that the memorandum of charge was issued to the petitioner. But the petitioner has not produced any records but it appears that due process was followed for inquiring into the said charge and the inquiry was carried out in accordance with the Police Regulation of Bengal [See Rule 861]. The then SDPO, Laogtharaivalley, namely Nabadwip Jamatia was entrusted as the first inquiry officer and on his transfer, Sri Kallol Roy [the SDPO, Longthharaivallly, the respondent No.5] was appointed as the inquiry officer. The said inquiry officer conducted the inquiry but the charged officials, the petitioner herein and one head constable, namely Sujit Debnath did not according to the report of the inquiry officer cooperate in the inquiry proceeding. As a result, the inquiry proceeding was drawn to his culmination ex-parte. By the Inquiry report dated 23.10.2014, the inquiry officer held that the charges No.I, III & IV were proved against the petitioner. In the final order based on the said inquiry report dated 23.10.2014 it had been observed as under:

"AND WHEREAS, from the statement of PWs-1,2,4,5,6,8 & 10 it revealed that on 22-23/04/2013 at 0120 hours SI(UB) Alauddin Majumder of Kamalpur P.S. [IO of KMP PS case No.21/2013, U/s-457/380 of IPC] took the accused person namely Sri Benu Sukla Baidya to the 1st floor of Kamalpur PS building at CIPA Project room for interrogation. That time C/6850 Surajit Debbarma [PW-4] was PS sentry and HC[UB] Sujit Debnath G.D. Duty officer & SPO No.25 Pradyut Bhattacharjee [PW-5] office duty. After 15-20 minutes SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder came out from the said room to arrange drinking water for the accused person leaving him alone and without taking any precautionary measures. After 5-10 minutes SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder went to 1st floor along with duty officer with a water bottle and they found accused person Benu Sukla Baidya was hanged himself from a ceiling fan with his wearing long pant. Thereafter the matter was informed to 2nd officer SI[UB] Paritosh Das and SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder brought down the accused person from hanging with the help of HC[UB] Sujit Debnath. The incident could took place due to gross negligence of SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder.

AND WHEREAS, IO SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder left the interrogation room keep the accused person alone without deputing anyone for keeping watch upon the accused person and came down to ground floor of PS for collecting drinking water, which was a great negligence on his part and indicates his unprofessional attitude. Since the accused persons was in the custody of the I.O SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder, it is his responsibility to depute staff for keeping watch upon the accused person. Hence, articles of charge No.I is well proved against SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder.

AND WHEREAS, SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder did not arrange medical examination of accused person Sri Benu Sukla Baidya soon after his arrest as per requirement of Section 54 of Cr.P.C. Amendment Act, 2008, Act No.5 of 2009. During enquiry the then I.C. of Kamalpur P.S. SI [UB] Paritosh Das, PW-2 could not produced any documents related to medical examination of a/p Sri Benu Sukla Baidya soon after his arrest. Therefore, charge No.III framed against the delinquent SI [UB] Alauddin Majumder in the instant DP is well proved."

As consequence of that finding, the petitioner was awarded with the following penalties:

(i) Withholding of 1(one) time scale increment without cumulative effect.

(ii) Period of absence w.e.f. 28.04.2013 to 22.06.2013 for 55 days and w.e.f 22.06.2013 to 11.08.2013 for 49 days- [55+49] = total 104 days has been directed to be treated as 'dies-non'.

[4] The petitioner was asked to make his representation on the proposed penalty. It is pertinent to note that the other delinquent officer was let off by awarding censure. Later on, the proposed punishment was confirmed by the final order dated 24.12.2014 [Annexure-E to the writ petition]. The petitioner had challenged the said final order by filing the appeal, but the said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 21.03.2015 [Annexure-F to the writ petition]. The appellate authority had totally agreed with the finding of the disciplinary authority and dismissed the appeal on observing as follows:

"It appears from the records on file that SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder took out accused person namely Shri Benu Sukla Baidya from lockup to the first floor of Kamalpur PS building at CIPA project room for interrogation on 22-23/04/2013 at 0120 hrs when C/6850 Surajit Debbarm was PS sentry duty, HC[UB] Sujit Debnath as GD Duty Officer and SPO Pradyut Bhattacharya as office duty. After about 15-20 minutes SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder came out from the said room to arrange drinking water for the accused person leaving him alone without any proper guard. When he returned to the first floor room along with duty officer with a water bottle, they found Benu Sukla Baidya hanging from a ceiling fan with his wearing long pant. The accused person was brought down from hanging by SI Alauddin Majumder and HC[UB] Sujit Debnath. This incident could take place due to gross negligence of SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder. This reveals from the statement of PWs 1,2,4,5,6,8 & 10. Hence the article of charge No.I is well proved. Article of Charge No.III is NOT PROVED.

SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder as an IO did not arrange medical examination of accused person Shri Benu Sukla Baidya after his arrest as per requirement of Section 54 Cr.P.C. Amendment Act, 2008 (Act No.5 of 2009). The in-Charge of Kamalpur PS SI(SUB) Paritosh Das, PW-2 could not produce documents of medical examinations of accused persons soon after his arrest. Hence, Article of Charge No.III against the delinquent SI[UB] Alauddin Majumder is well proved.

Article of Charge No.IV relates to remaining unauthorized absent from prescribed HQr. Jawaharngar Police Line after overstaying on 23 hrs station leave w.e.f. 28.04.2013 without any permission from competent authority. From the statement of PWs and other relevant documents, it appears that SI Alauddin Majumder while under suspension submitted a prayer to SP Dhalai on 25.04.2013 for allowing him to stay at home which was rejected. On 27.04.2013 he was permitted for 23 hrs station leave which was availed him but did not return on the stipulated date on 28.04.2013. On 22.06.2013 forenoon he resumed duty and absented himself again w.e.f. 22.06.2013 [AN]. He jointed at police line, Dhalai, Jawaharnagar on 12.08.2013 [FN] after revocation of his suspension. Therefore, the articles of charge No.IV is well proved."

Being aggrieved by that finding, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging both the orders of the appellate authority and the disciplinary authority.

[5] Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted this court by submitting that on the basis of the police report the criminal court did not even frame any charge against the petitioner. Therefore, no action can be taken against the petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding on the same set of charge. That apart, Mr. Pal, learned counsel has quite stoutly submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner.

[6] From the other side, Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has categorically stated that negligence of the petitioner has not only brought on record in the form of charge, but on affording all reasonable opportunities, those were proved by evidence. Thus, no interference is called for. Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A has further submitted that this court cannot be called upon to re-appreciate the evidence as the scope of judicial review does not permit such re-appreciation, when no plea of the total absence of the evidence has been raised.

[7] Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on scrutiny of the records so produced before this court, this court does not find any infraction of procedural propriety or principles of natural justice. On the contrary, it is found that even on the occasion of imposing penalty, the petitioner has been shown adequate leniency. Hence, this writ petition is bereft of merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.