Budheswar Deka vs State of Arunachal Pradesh

S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.—The Petitioner while working as Constable at Nahalagun ''A'' Company, a departmental proceeding was, instituted against him and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 21.12.87. The charge sheet was issued on 23.3.87 by the Superintendent of Police, Ziro containing the following Articles of charges:

ARTICLE-I

That Const. B.S. Deka (Now under suspension) of ''A'' Coy Naharlagun while on duty at Damin on 18.12.86 at 2000 Hrs. had left the camp without permission and entered the camp after consuming liquor and quarreled with his own staff. Thus const. B.S. Deka is charged with misconduct and negligence of duty.

ARTICLE-II

That on 18.12.86, at 2000 Hrs. Const. B.S. Deka (Now under suspension) while being posted at Damin under the influence of liquor taken out his service rifle. Bud No. 237 R/No. 339637 and amunition and threatned to shoot his staff in the camp. Thus Const. B.S. Deka is charged with gross misconduct and negligence in duty.

The Petitioner submitted replies to the charge sheet denying the allegations contained therein. Thereafter the disciplinary authority issued a notice on 29.7.87 with a copy of the finding of the Enquiry Officer and asked the Petitioner to show cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. The Petitioner showed causes against the proposed penalty. However, the Superintendent or Police, Ziro by the impugned order dated 13.1.88, dismissed the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal before the Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh on 12.2.88. But the Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 8.4.88 rejected the appeal. The Petitioner has thereafter approached this Court in this writ petition.

I have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Roy, learned Govt. Advocate.

Mr. Mahanta submits that, although the Petitioner denied the allegations contained the charge sheet, in his reply dated 28.3.87 no domestic enquiry was held in the presence of the Petitioner and the Petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence. The so-called finding of the Enquiry Officer was submitted on the basis of a domestic enquiry if any, held behind the back of the Petitioner. As such the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the impugned order of dismissal passed on the basis thereof have been vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. The impugned order has therefore been passed in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution as well as Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services CCA Rule 1965 (in short CCS (CCA) Rule 1965.

Mr. A. Roy, learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand, submits that although no domestic enquiry was held into the charges after receipt of reply from the Petitioner denying the allegations contained the charge sheet, in fact the enquiry was held on 30.12.86 on which date the Circle Officer examined the witnesses as well as the Petitioner and asked the Petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and the finding of the enquiry after was given on the basis of the enquiry dated 30.12.06 held in the presence of the Petitioner. Mr. Roy further submits that although technically the domestic enquiry ought to have been held after receipt of reply to the charge sheet from the Petitioner but the principles of natural justice was substantially complied with in the enquiry held on 30.12.86.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner as well as one behalf of the Respondents and have perused the materials on records. Admittedly the charge sheet was issued on 23.3.87 and as such, whatever enquiry was held on 30.12.86, was a preliminary enquiry to find out whether there was any prima facie case against the Petitioner to issue charge sheet, or not. After receipt of the charge sheet if the Petitioner admitted the charges, holding of domestic enquiry might not have been necessary. However, when the Petitioner denied the allegations contained the charge sheet it was incumbent on the part of the Disciplinary authority to hold domestic enquiry either by himself or by an Enquiry Officer appointed by him with due notice to the Petitioner. The holding of the domestic enquiry is not an empty formality. It is the forum where a delinquent employee gets the opportunity to defend himself and to prove his innocence by cross examining the witnesses examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority in support of the charges as well as by examining his own witnesses in defence. Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rule stipulates that if the delinquent employee denies the allegations at domestic enquiry has to be held in the manner provided in the Rules. The provision of Rule 14 of the CCS Rule is mandatory. The contention of the learned Govt. Advocate is that the principles of natural justice was substantially complied with in the enquiry held on 30.12.86 prior to issue of charge sheet and the finding of the inquiry Officer based on that enquiry is no defence against non-compliance of provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 13.1.88 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ziro dismissing the Petitioner from service and the impugned order dated 8.4.88 passed by the Respondent No. 2 rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner cannot be sustained. The petition is therefore allowed. The impugned order dated 13.1.88 and 8.4.88 are set aside.

It will remain open to the Respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Ziro to bold domestic enquiry as contemplated under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules into the charges leveled against the Petitioner and to pass appropriate orders. In case the Respondent No. 4 decides to. continue with the departmental proceeding then the proceeding shall be concluded within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order and the Petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension during the period from the date of dismissal to the date of passing appropriate order after conclusion of the departmental proceeding and shall be paid his subsistence allowance of that period. If, however, the Respondent No. 4 decides not to continue with the departmental proceeding, the Petitioner shall be reinstated in service within one month and he shall be paid full back wages from the date of placing him under suspension to the date of reinstatement. The Petitioner shall also be entitled to all other service benefits which would have accrued to him had he not been placed under suspension and ultimately dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 13.1.88.