Rajen Bhuyan vs The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others

J.N. Sarma, J.—This Civil Rule has been filed against the order dated 21.4.88 by which the Petitioner was dismissed from service. That order of dismissal is at Annexure-3 to the writ application. An appeal was preferred vide Annexure-4 to the writ application and that appeal was also dismissed by order dated 5.9.88 by the Inspector-General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar which is at Annexure-5 to the writ application. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Petitioner was a constable and later on he was the Head Constable of the Arunachal Pradesh Police Organisation. A disciplinary proceeding was started against the Petitioner on 28.5.86. The charges levelled against him are misconduct cowardice in nature, dereliction of duty, misbehaviour etc. An enquiry was conduct by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lohit District, Tezu. In that enquiry the Petitioner was found guilty. Accordingly on 21.4.88 he was dismissed from service and on appeal the same was affirmed. Hence this write application.

An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondents wherein it has been stated that the enquiry wan in accordance with law and this Court should not interfere with the order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

I have heard Sri D.C. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri N. Islam, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

The law is now well settled that it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to inform the delinquent Officer that he has a right to be assisted by another Govt. servant of his choice. If the Government servant declined to avail of the opportunity, the inquiry would proceed. But if the delinquent Officer is not informed of his right and if it is found that the delinquent Officer suffered as a result of that, it will vitiate the enquiry. The law is further well settled that at any rate the Inquiry Officer atleast must enquire from the delinquent Officer whether he would like to engage any one from the department to defend him and when the delinquent is a Govt. servant belonging to the lower echelons of service, he would further be informed that he is entitled under the relevant rules to seek assistance of another Government servant, belonging to department to represent him.

A perusal of the enquiry in the instant case will show that this was not complied with. This point was also agitated in the appeal. In that view of the matter relying on Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. I quash the enquiry and set aside the order of dismissal of the Petitioner. The next question is whether a fresh enquiry should be held at this point of time i.e. after lapse of more than 6 years. As pointed out in Bhagat Ram (supra) the court has the power to punish the delinquent on the basis of materials and pass appropriate order in that regard. I have looked to the materials and I am of the opinion, that the interest of justice will be met if the Petitioner''s reinstated in his service without any back wages and further if there is stoppage of two increments for 3 years. Accordingly, I direct that the reinstatement will be done within a period of 2 (two) months from today, It is needless to say that the intervening period will be deemed to be in service for the purpose of pension and other benefits like fixation of salary etc.

With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.