Ranjan Gogoi, J. - (1.) AN Order dated 27.7.1996 removing the petitioner from service passed by the Superintendent of Police, West Garo Hills District, Tura has been assailed in the present writ petition.
(2.) THE brief facts that will be required to be noticed for an effective adjudication of the questions raised are as follows: The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was a Sub -Inspector in the Meghalaya Police. On 22.1.1991, a charge memo was issued against the petitioner alleging misconduct and negligence in performance of duties. The facts stated in the charge memo dated 22.1.1991 are that, on 25.12.1990, the petitioner was detailed for duty to proceed to William Nagar to arrest an accused. He had gone to that place armed with a service revolver and 12 rounds of ammunitions. On 27.12.1990, at about 6:30 PM, the petitioner is alleged to have consumed liquor with one LNK Noliston Marak of 2nd MLP Bn. in the house of Bindu was while on duty armed with the service revolver and the ammunitions allotted to him. In the charge memo, it is further alleged that while consuming liquor, the petitioner had taken out the service revolver pointing the same towards LNK Noliston Marak and threatened to kill him. It is further alleged in the charge memo that a bullet was fired from the service revolver of the petitioner, which hit on the left chest of NLK Noliston Marak, who died on the spot. In the above facts, it was alleged that gross misconduct and negligence in handling the service revolver a was committed by the petitioner rendering him unfit to be retained in the police force. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence to the charges levelled. The petitioner replied to the charge memo dated 22.1.1991, denying the allegations of consumption of alcohol and stating that on 27.12.1990 he was in the house of Bindu Das discussing the possible arrest of the accused for which he was ordered to go to William Nagar. According to the petitioner, at that time, LNK Noliston Marak pulled out the revolver and started playing with it. At that stage, the petitioner requested Noliston Marak to hand over the revolver back to him and as the said person kept on playing with the revolver, the petitioner tried to take the revolver out of the hands of Noliston Marak and in the process one shot got accidentally fired from the revolver, which hit Noliston Marak. On receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, not being satisfied, decided to hold an enquiry and accordingly a departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner. It must be noticed at this stage that as many as 17 witnesses were examined in course of the enquiry in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was also examined in course of the enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority holding the charge(s) levelled to be proved. The said authority forwarded a copy of the report to the petitioner asking for his reply thereto. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice issued by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the impugned Order dated 27.7.1996 had been passed removing the petitioner, from service. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) I have heard Shri S.K. Deb Purkayastha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.D. Chullai, learned senior eminent advocate, Meghalaya appearing for the respondents.;