MAHENDRA SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS
LAWS(GAU)-1994-8-11
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on August 08,1994

Mahendra Singh Yadav Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The Petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. On 4.3.92 the following charges were drawn against the Petitioner.
Article-1. - That on 12.2.92 at about 2130 hrs, SI. MS Yadav while posted at Police Station Ziro went to the para line, Ziro in uniform carrying his service revolver without any official purpose and fired two rounds from his revolver in air without any valid reason. This act on the part of the SI, MS Yadav amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a police officer.

Annexure-II. - Statement of imputation of gross misconduct in respect of Article of charge framed against SI, MS Yadav of AAP Bn. Daporijo.

The Petitioner submitted written statement denying the entire charge. The Disciplinary authority appointed one N.S. Radhawa as Enquiry Officer even before filing of the Written statement. Along with the Written statement, the Petitioner submitted a loiter with a prayer to allow him to take help of one Yadav as Defence Assistant. The Petitioner made another prayer subsequently for defence assistant, but the same was rejected. on 27.6.92. During enquiry the Petitioner prayed for examining P.R. Gyana and T. Tangha as defence witnesses and messages were sent calling them hut their presence could no, be procured. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer himself acted as Presiding Officer and no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to examine witness and the enquiry was closed. The Petitioner submitted a statement of defence pointing out serious contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. On 24.11.93 the Disciplinary authority agreed with the report of Enquiry Officer and imposed penalty of removal. Enquiry report was enclosed with the order. There was a Civil Rule No. 3763/93 before this Court and this Court by order dated 17.12.93 directed the Petitioner to file an appeal within 7 days and stayed the order. The appeal was preferred. On 24.12.93 an application was filed for personal hearing, On 9.2.94 the appellate authority dismissed the appeal without giving personal hearing, The appellate authority regarding the defence witnesses rejected the plea on the ground that the Petitioner should have produced them although senior police officials failed to produce them.

(2.)I have heard Sri A. Goswami, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Smti. N. Saikia, learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondents and also the record has been produced before me.
(3.)Sri Goswami has drawn my attention to the order of the appellate authority at page 47 where it has been found as follows:
The service revolver alongwith ammns, issued to the delinquent was seized at 0700 hrs on 13.12.92 and the time of seizure no shortage of amnms, had been found and no mark of the burn was found on the great coat of the delinquent when the service revolver was seized.

The second contention of Sri Goswami is that in this case the enquiry report was not given before the punishment was imposed on the Officer.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.