N. Saikia v. State

Mrs. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an illiterate person having read only up to XI standard. Because of such deficiency, he could not submit his reply. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not provided with any Defence Assistant. She further submits that though the petitioner was present before the Enquiry Officer on the date fi xed i.e. 18-08-2001, no copy of the Inquiry Report was thereafter furnished to h im. Denying the allegation of intoxication, learned counsel submits that the pet itioner had earlier suffered from a bout of depression and had he been given a p roper opportunity, he would have satisfied the authority about his innocence. Le arned counsel submits that there was no misconduct or disobedience by the petiti oner. She finally submits that the removal of the petitioner from service is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and fair procedure and i n the circumstances of the case, is grossly disproportionate. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the following dec isions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (1) Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya Vrs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others; (2004) 4 SCC 560; (2) 01; and (3) . Jagdish Singh Vrs. Punjab Engineering College and Others; (2009) 7 SCC 3 State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vrs. Ram Daras Yadav; (2010) 2 SCC 236

6. as been duly considered. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner h

7. No doubt the petitioner was a member of a disciplined force and as a member of a disciplined force, he was expected to maintain the highest stan dards of discipline. But at the same time, it cannot also be said that just beca use he was a member of a disciplined force, he was divested of his right to a fa ir procedure. It is seen that the inquiry was conducted without affording the pe titioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Report was not furnished to the petitioner and that was acted upon by the disciplinary authorit y while passing the impugned order removing the petitioner from service.

8. There was thus gross procedural impropriety in the disciplinary proceeding and the same has vitiated the impugned order of penalty. Moreover, re moval from service is not a punishment prescribed under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861. Punishments prescribed are either dismissal, suspension or reduction in rank on the one hand or, fine, confinement, deprivation of good conduct pay a nd removal from any office of distinction or special emolument on the other hand . It only goes to show the non-application of mind on the part of the disciplina ry authority while imposing the penalty on the petitioner.

9. Considering the above, I am of the view that the respondents wer e not justified in removing the petitioner from service in the manner in which i t has been done. Though the petitioner was entitled to a fair procedure, in the opinion of this Court, the same was denied to him. Further, the punishment of re moval from service is one which was not permissible to be imposed as per the Pol ice Act. Consequently, the impugned order of removal dated 06-09-2001 is interfe red with and the same is hereby set aside.

10. Both Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya and State of Uttar Pradesh and Other s (Supra) are decisions relating to punishments imposed on police personnel. De spite being conscious of the fact that the cases dealt with members of a discipl ined force, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the facts of those two cases intervened and modified the penalty imposed. Coming to the present case, one of the major punishments provide 11. d under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 is suspension. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the long period of time which has el apsed in the meanwhile, the punishment shall be modified by treating the period of suspension from 17-07-2001 to 06-09-2001 as the punishment imposed on the pet itioner. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service, subject to furnishing of fitness certificate, maintaining continuity of service all through out.

13. Writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.