High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 847/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M Haloi, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. An ejahar was lodged on 24.10.1997 before the Officer-in-Charge, Geeta Nagar Pol ice Station, by persons who appear to be members of Public gathering at the plac e of occurrence to the effect that one Kalyan Sarma, a Junior Engineer of Assam Tourism Development Corporation Limited was shot dead by one Naren Deka, an Arme d Branch Constable posted as Security Guard at the Doordarshan Kendra, Guwahati on that very day at about 9:45 p.m. in front of the Doordarshan Kendra. Based on the said ejahar, Geeta Nagar Police Station Case No. 97/97 under Section 302 IP
Decision
C read with Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act was registered. Another ejahar was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Geeta Nagar Police Stati on by one Deben Das, who is petitioner No. 3 herein alleging that Naren Deka att empted to commit suicide and the said ejahar was registered as Geeta Nagar Polic e Station Case No. 98/97 under Section 309 IPC. The father of Kalyan Sarma, namely, Jagat Dhar Sarma filed a writ petition befor e this Court praying for compensation for the death of Kalyan Sarma in the said incident. The said writ petition was registered as Civil Rule No. 596/98. The wr it petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.09.2002. The operative portion of the judgment has relevance for the purpose of this case and therefore, the sa me is quoted herein below: (cid:28)8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 5 is directe d to complete the investigation in the above mention two cases within a period o f three month from today, if not already done, and submit the report before the appropriate Court in accordance with the provisions of law. Respondent No. 4 the Superintendent of Police (City), Guwahati is directed to ensure that this order is carried out by the Officer-in-charge of Geetanagar Police Station within t he period mentioned above. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay the co mpensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner within a period of three months from today failing which the petitioner will be entitled to recover the amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default. The state is furt her directed to recover this amount from Sri Deka and other members of the party who did nothing to prevent the murderous attack and failed in their duty. The e xercise in this behalf shall be completed within a period of six months. Respond ent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to initiate appropriate enquiry/proceedings to com ply with this direction. 9. The cost of the petition is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the stat e within three months. (cid:29) From the records, it appears that by an order dated 08.09.2006, the learned Addl . Sessions Judge (FTC No. 4), Kamrup convicted Naren Deka under Section 302 IPC in Sessions case No. 148(K)/2004. He was also convicted for a period of 3 (three ) months RI under Section 309 IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwh ati by an order dated 28.12.2004 in GR Case No. 4616/97. On 03.01.2006, the respondent No. 3, Senior Superintendent of Police, City, Guwa hati passed the following order: (cid:28)ORDER In pursuance of the order dated 03.09.2005 of Hon’ble High Court in Civil Rule N o. 596 of 1998 and this office D.O. No. 2408 dated 22.08.2005 the following Poli ce Personnel shall Pay the amount as follows:- 1) Delinquent ABC/2664 Naren Deka (Since dismissed from Service) 80% of Rs. 5,10,000/- = Rs. 4,08,000/-. Guard Commander LNK Bhabesh Kalita (Now Havilder) 10% of Rs. 5,10,000/- 2) = 51,000/- 3) 4) The amount shown above will be recovered in 20 equal instalments from their mont hly salaries except Serial No. 1 from the month of December, 2005 drawn in Janua ry/2006. (cid:29) ABC/2997 Satyen Barman 5% of Rs. 5,10,000/- = Rs. 25,500/- ABC/310 Deben Das = 5% of Rs. 5,10,000/- = Rs. 25,500/- Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the said order, namely, Bhabesh Kalita, Satyen Baruah and Deben Das have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 03.01.20 06. The said order dated 03.01.2006 was passed with reference to the Judgment an d order dated 03.09.2002 of this Court in Civil Rule No. 596/98, though in the s aid order, date of the judgment and order is wrongly recorded as 03.09.2005. By the said order, it is apparent that petitioner No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 51, 000.00 and the other two petitioners Rs. 25,500.00 each. The accused Naren Deka, who was dismissed from service, was made to pay Rs. 4,10,000.00. By an order passed on 03.03.2006, the operation of the said order dated 03.01.20 06, so far as it related to the writ petitioners, was suspended. Mr. Nair, with reference to the statements made in paragraphs 8 and 15 of the wr it application submits that no enquiry/proceeding was initiated against the peti tioners before saddling them with the liability to pay the amount shown against their names for compensation paid to Jagat Dhar Sarma. He has emphasized that th is Court in the said judgment and order dated 03.09.2002 had directed to initiat e appropriate enquiry/proceeding for the purpose of recovery of amount from poli ce personnel who failed in their duty. It is submitted by him that there was no apprehension in the minds of the petitioners that Naren Deka would commit such a crime and that the petitioners were also not detailed for duty at that relevant point of time and were not present at the place of occurrence. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order so far as it relates to the petitioners can not be sustained in law. By referring to the affidavit filed, Mr. Haloi submits that no departmental proc eeding or any criminal case was initiated against the writ petitioners and the p etitioners had deposed as witnesses in the departmental proceeding initiated aga inst Naren Deka. The respondent authorities, admittedly, did not initiate any departmental procee ding or register any criminal case against the petitioners. The respondent autho rities have also not laid before this Court any material to indicate that any ot her enquiry/proceeding was initiated for the purpose of determining and/or ident ifying police personnel who failed in their duty. To that extent, the order date d 03.01.2006 is not in terms of the order passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 596/98, in which the petitioners, it is to be noted, were also not party respon dents. That apart, the order 03.01.2006 is stigmatic in character and has civil consequ ences and therefore, the impugned order directing recovery of specified amount f rom the petitioners without any enquiry, militates against the principles of nat ural justice. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 03.01 .2006 so far as it relates to the petitioners is quashed. No cost.