VALJIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PARMAR Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 3rd September/ October 2001, whereby the petitioner is dismissed from service under Rule 3 of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956, by the Superintendent of Police, Sabarkanatha at Himatnagar. The facts are that while the petitioner was serving as Unarmed Head Constable in Talod Police Station and was in-charge of Harsol Outpost, which is under the control of Talod Police Station, in 1997, a complaint was filed by the Auditor of the Cooperation Department in the office of the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sabarkantha against one Somsinh Babsinh Makwana of Village Lavari, Taluka Prantij for offence under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered with Talod Police Station being C.R. No.I-153 of 1997. The said complaint was handed over to the petitioner for investigation and it is alleged that the petitioner visited the premises of the cooperative society at Village Lavari and seized record of the cooperative society and called the accused Somsinh Babsinh Makwana for interrogation. It is also alleged that the petitioner put the accused in lock up without effecting arrest of the accused and when one Kesrisinh Hemtusinh Makwana and Deepsinh Magansinh Chauhan met the petitioner and asked him to find out some solution to the problem. He demanded a sum of Rs.5000/-, but then finally agreed for a sum of Rs.1000/-. Accused, Somsinh Babsinh Makwana was allowed to go with an instruction to come with the said amount. It is further alleged against the petitioner that said Shri Somsinh went to the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) at Himatnagar and filed a complaint. On the basis of that a trap was arranged, but then the said trap was not successful.

(2.) The petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 02.09.1998 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner indulged in an act of accepting bribe. After preliminary inquiry, a regular departmental inquiry was ordered. The petitioner filed his reply to the said show cause notice in detail on 12.02.1999, a copy of which is at Annexure 'B' to this petition. The petitioner in his reply has explained evidence of all the persons who were cited as witness in the charge sheet.

(3.) The inquiry officer has filed his report dated 24.05.1999 wherein after reproducing the evidence of the witnesses has stated in the concluding para that, 'from the statement of the Police Sub Inspector, Shri J.K. Rathod, it is clear that there was a complaint against Somsinh Babsinh Parmar for misappropriation and that on 16.12.1997 the accused Somsinh was placed in lock up and that the said fact is not mentioned in the case diary'. Relying on that the Inquiry Officer has stated that there is sufficient reason to believe that on the relevant day the petitioner had called Somsinh and in the presence of the witnesses had put the accused-Somsinh in lock up and by misusing his status of Jamadar demanded a sum of Rs.5000/-, for releasing the accused from the lock up, made the accused to promise to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-, has thus indulged in the activity of accepting bribe, remained negligent in his duties, caused mental harassment to the accused. The Inquiry Officer has further recorded that when the accused himself has approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau and has got arranged a trap there is no reason for not believing that the petitioner had not indulged in the activity of accepting bribe. It is thereafter, that the Inquiry Officer had made a sweeping statement that on the basis of the statement recorded in the preliminary inquiry and on the basis of the documentary evidence led in the departmental inquiry (regular) the guilt of the petitioner is established.