K. Rajan vs The Inspector General of Police, The Deputy Inspector General of Police and The Commandant

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner rendered 17 years of service as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force. He belongs to Kanyakumari District. He married and he has also a son. His wife is one Tmt.T.R. Shanthi. The Petitioner served in the State of Tripura. While so, the third Respondent issued a show cause notice alleging that the Petitioner committed misconduct under Rule 21 of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 by contracting another marriage with one Tmt. Branti Reang, when the marriage with Tmt.T.R. Shanthi was in subsistence. The Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed and in the enquiry five witnesses from the village of Tmt. Branti Reang including Tmt. Branti Reang were examined.

According to the Petitioner, since those witnesses deposed in Hindi, he was not able to understand the same and he did not also have any assistance and nobody came forward to assist him in the enquiry to translate the deposition of witnesses. In these circumstances, he did not sign in the enquiry proceedings where the witnesses deposed in the enquiry. He did not cross-examine the witnesses in those circumstances. After the enquiry was over, the enquiry officer submitted his report, dated 05.03.2008. The enquiry report was also in Hindi. Therefore, when the same was served on him and sought for his explanation, he wanted English translation of the report of the enquiry, but the third Respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order, dated 28.03.2008 dismissing the Petitioner from service on the ground that the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges.

The Petitioner filed appeal, dated 23.04.2008 to the second Respondent. The second Respondent passed an order, dated 15.07.2008 rejecting the appeal. The Petitioner filed revision petition before the first Respondent questioning the order of first appellate authority. The first Respondent passed an order, dated 16.10.2008 dismissing the revision petition. The Petitioner has now filed the present writ petition to quash the order, dated 28.03.2008 of the third Respondent, the order, dated 15.07.2008 passed by the second Respondent and the order, dated 16.10.2008 passed by the first Respondent.

The Respondents filed a counter affidavit refuting all the allegations.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner advanced so many contentions and one of the contentions is that enquiry was not fairly conducted as the Petitioner was not aware of the proceedings. Hence, the Petitioner did not sign in those proceedings. He submits that the Petitioner would be satisfied, if those statements are translated and given in English along with the translated copy of the report of the enquiry officer, based on which he was dismissed from service and an opportunity is given to cross-examine the witnesses.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the matter could be remanded to the third Respondent to consider afresh after the Petitioner is given the English version of the deposition of witnesses and the report of the enquiry officer, so as to afford opportunity to crossexamine the departmental witnesses.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents has strenuously submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. It is submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to seek for English translation of the deposition of the witnesses as well as the report of the enquiry officer. He has also sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have considered the submissions made on either side.

I am not going into the other contentions except the one relating to non-furnishing of the deposition of witnesses and report of the enquiry officer in English, which would vitiate the proceedings.

The Petitioner belongs to the last category in the police force as a constable. According to him, he does not know Hindi and particularly he could not read Hindi. Hence, when the witnesses deposed in the enquiry, he was not able to understand whether the same was correctly recorded in the proceedings. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, nobody in the department came to assist in the enquiry and to translate the deposition. Hence, he did not cross-examine those witnesses. It is the Petitioner''s case that the enquiry report was also not translated in English. He was not able to understand the findings of the enquiry officer. Principles of natural justice requires that the proceedings should be conducted in the mother tongue in which the Petitioner is well versed or at least in English, so that he can seek assistance of other persons. Conducting the proceedings in the language, which is not known to the Petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice.

The very purpose of conducting enquiry is to give the Petitioner an opportunity to put forth his case and to effectively defend in the case. The enquiry is conducted to give opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. If the witnesses speak in a language, which is not known to the Petitioner, it does not serve any purpose. The Petitioner could not effectively defend himself. Further more, when the Petitioner refused to sign in the minutes of the enquiry as he did not understand the same, the disciplinary authority ought to have intervened at that stage and have furnished English translation before passing the impugned order of dismissal. But, the same was not done. Hence, in my view, non furnishing of English translation of the deposition of the witnesses and denial of reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders resulted in deprival of livelihood to the Petitioner. Hence, when such a serious consequence results in passing of the impugned order, the Petitioner should have been given reasonable opportunity by furnishing the English translation of the deposition of the witnesses particularly when the Petitioner refused to sign the proceedings on the ground that he was not able to understand the proceedings as to whether the deposition was correctly recorded. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated and no reasonable opportunity was given to the Petitioner.

For the afore-said reasons, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the third Respondent to furnish the English translation of the deposition of the witnesses and to given an opportunity to the Petitioner to cross-examine those witnesses and thereafter, to get the report from the enquiry officer and pass appropriate orders based on the report in accordance with law, after giving the English version of the report, if the report is given in Hindi. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. The Petitioner could also be permitted to take assistance from the co-employee, who knows Hindi as well as English, to assist him in the enquiry, if the Petitioner sought for such an assistance.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.