Rana Kishore Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] The petitioner has challenged an order dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhalai District, Jawaharnagar imposing punishment of removal from service on the petitioner.

[2] Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Tripura Police in the year 2009. On 12.11.2011 a young girl filed an FIR against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). It was further alleged that while he was in police custody in connection with the said criminal case, on 13.11.2011 the petitioner escaped when he was allowed to go to attend nature's call. He did so by pushing a sentry who was posted there to guard him.

[3] The petitioner denied the charges upon which a departmental inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report to the disciplinary authority holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority thereupon passed a provisional order dated 01.05.2012 proposing punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the said communication under a representation dated 09.06.2012 alleging that the inquiry was not conducted in consonance with the rules of natural justice. He also produced an affidavit of the victim girl stating that there was no rape committed on her by the petitioner and that the issues were resolved. The disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 23.08.2012 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal in terms of the service rules. For a long time he did not file any such appeal. He, however, later on preferred a representation to the authorities in which he pointed out that in both the criminal cases, namely, one alleging rape and another of escaping from the police custody he had been acquitted. He, therefore, prayed for reinstatement in service. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tripura by his order dated 20.03.2015 rejected such representation. He noted that the petitioner had not filed any appeal within the time, however, he considered the representation of the petitioner on merits. He noted that the victim girl who had filed a complaint against the petitioner appeared before him and stated that the issues were resolved through the involvement of the panchayet where the petitioner was fined. She, therefore withdrew her allegations. He also recorded that before him the petitioner had appeared in person and stated that while he was in police custody he was mentally disturbed and it was, therefore, that he had gone away unknown to himself.

[4] One of the main grounds raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that having been acquitted in both the criminal cases, the appellate authority could not have sustained the punishment of removal from service. He submitted that though the petitioner's acquittals were recorded after the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment, the appellate authority should have taken into account such changed circumstances. It is not necessary for me to examine this contention since counsel for the petitioner had pressed for a preliminary ground of the disciplinary authority not providing a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report before imposing punishment on the petitioner. In response to the provisional order of punishment issued by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner had filed a detailed representation dated 09.06.2012 in which he had raised following ground :

" That Sir, neither E.O. nor disciplinary authority supplied me any inquiry report to know how charges are proved while in both the criminal cases of the same incident. I am likely to be discharged from liability very soon and the department will have no right to punish me even with a censure. So I pray the D.P. must be disposed off without imposing any punishment to avoid conflict and contradiction with court."

[5] There is no denial in this ground raised by the petitioner at the very outset. Thus, the petitioner had objected to the disciplinary authority proceeding further without supplying a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report. After the Inquiry Officer supplied his report to the disciplinary authority, it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to provide a copy thereof to the petitioner to enable him to make his representation why the conclusions and suggestions of the Inquiry Officer should not be accepted. This much is amply clear by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and Ors versus Mohd. Ramzan Khan dated 20 November, 1990 reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588: (AIR 1991 SC 471). At least when the disciplinary authority recorded its tentative findings and proposed the punishment and called upon the petitioner to respond to the same, he ought to have provided a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report along with such a communication. This would have enabled the petitioner to make an effective representation why according to him the Inquiry Officer had erred in holding that the charges are proved and why the disciplinary authority should reject such findings. Even when the petitioner brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority this requirement, instead of providing a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report he proceeded to pass the final order of punishment of removal from service. From the inception thus the disciplinary proceedings have vitiated on the ground of breach of natural justice.

[6] In the result, the order of punishment dated 23.08.2012 and the appellate order dated 01.05.2012 are set aside. The proceedings are placed back at a stage where the disciplinary authority shall supply a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report to the petitioner giving him reasonable opportunity to make a representation against the report of the Inquiry Officer and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the petitioner's representation, if any, so made. It is clarified that by virtue of striking down the order of removal the petitioner would stand reinstated in service, however, shall be under deemed suspension. The question of his pay and allowances for the past period will depend on the outcome of the fresh exercise which shall be undertaken as per this judgment. The disciplinary authority shall pass a fresh order within a period of three months from today.

[7] Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.