KARUNAMOY ACHARJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for quashing the letter No. VIII-1/99-RKS, dated 6. 3. 1999 (Annexure-9) issued by the respondent No. 4 requiring him to produce defence witnesses, etc. and the entire departmental proceedings subsequent to the enquiry report dated 15. 10. 1998.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that while he was serving as Head Constable/radio Operator at Langjing, Imphal under "d" Coy, 2 Signal Bn. Imphal, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry against him for collection of unauthorised and provocative radio message inciting signal personnel against Government, etc. Towards that end, a memo of articles of charges was served upon him on 11. 2. 1998 (Annexure-A/2 ). The petitioner submitted him written statement of defence on 25. 2. 1998. One R. K. Sahay, Asstt. Commandant of 2-Sig. Bn. CRPF was appointed as the Enquiry Officer of the departmental enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry was started against the petitioner and three others and between 21. 8. 1998 and 2. 10. 1998, examinations of witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and defence were completed and the D. E. was closed for writing the report of the E. O. Though enquiry reports were given in respect of 3 other charged officials but not enquiry report was given to the petitioner. On the basis of the enquiry reports, punishment was given to the said three officials. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not on duty at the relevant time i. e. from 9 a. m. to 3 p. m. of 29. 1. 1998 but was on out-pass (Annexure-A/6 ). It is the further case of the petitioner that in the course of enquiry, none of the prosecution witnesses made any statement about his presence at the T. P. Network Room and that even the three witnesses, namely, P. U. Jose, R. R. Pillai and M. Sekar, who were found guilty to the charges in the D. E. and were given punishment, deposed before the E. O. that the petitioner was not present at the said T. P. Room at the relevant time. It is contended by the petitioner that the enquiry report duly signed which was received by him through postal means revealed that the charge against the petitioner was not proved.

(3.) IT is also contended by the petitioner that even though the law requires that a copy of the enquiry once prepared, should be furnished to the delinquent official, the petitioner was not furnished with such a report. Instead of closing the D. E. on the basis of the enquiry report, according to the petitioner, three more prosecution witnesses, namely, P. J. Jose, R. R. Pillai, and M. Sekar were recalled and were examined again on 12. 1. 1999 and 6. 3. 1999. It is further averred that by the impugned letter, the petitioner was directed to produce within 15 days defence witnesses, exhibits and written defence statement for the second time against the same charges based on the same set of facts. Thereupon, the petitioner prayed for extension of time on 16. 3. 1999 for consulting a legal expert but was given only 2 days time and to produce the list of witnesses, etc. on 19. 3. 1999. It was under such circumstances that the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court.