K.KANNAN,J. - (1.) THE writ petition challenges the order of termination from service passed by the appellate authority who enhanced the order of the punishment issued originally by the Superintendent of Police imposing him (petitioner) a withdrawal of two increments with cumulative effect. The facts that gave rise to the case may be detailed below.
(2.) THE petitioner was a police constable, who was said to have stopped a matador van on 18.05.1990 and demanded from the driver to produce travel documents and was demanding some illegal gratification. One Shadi Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector, was reported to have intervened to let go the driver with the van and the petitioner was infuriated, followed the ASI to the Guard Room and threatened to kill him with sten -gun. Following the said incident, he was placed by an order of suspension on 19.05.1990 and after a purported preliminary enquiry, a chargesheet had been levied against him through an Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire into the charge of serious misconduct. The chargesheet issued on 28.06.1990 referred to the first incident of the petitioner's stopping the matador van and demanding of him illegal gratification and when the ASI interceded, he offered a 50 -50 settlement, while the second portion of the charge was when the ASI let go the driver with the matador van, the petitioner followed him to the guard room and used abusive words and shoot him from his sten -gun. At the enquiry, the witnesses were of persons who had known the presence of the petitioner at the spot and who knew about the petitioner's possession of the sten -gun, but as regards the actual incident of a demand for illegal gratification and a later threat held out against the ASI, it was the ASI's own statement that was placed before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner cited 4 defence witnesses including himself, and another was the driver of the matador van. He supported the petitioner in his defence that it was the ASI, who demanded illegal gratification and when the petitioner interceded, the ASI gave false imputations against him and caused the trumped up charges against him. The Enquiry Officer who made the report of what would seem to be an elaborate report reproduced the versions of witnesses one by one and after 20 pages of narration, he would state that he had carefully considered the statements and further paraphrased the respective statements of witnesses before concluding his report in cryptic expression that he had come to the conclusion that charges against the constable had been fully proved. One would be aghast at the character of report and the hollowness which it exhibits. We cannot expect great forensic skills out of officers who are not trained judicially but an Enquiry Officer who is to enquire into the charges and who collects evidence must apply at least a modicum of reasoning of why he prefers one stream of evidence to the other. If there was a statement of ASI that he interceded when the petitioner was demanding illegal gratification and when the defence is that he did not so demand but it was only the ASI, who was demanding the money, then it should be expected that the only other person who was a party to the incident was the driver and the correctness of the two rival contentions could be tested only by appraisal of the statement of the driver of the matador van. If the driver's statement was to be accepted, then it showed the falsity of the ASI's versions If the driver's statement was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer, it would mean the vindication of the complaint and that would require reason to set forth why he was rejecting the driver's version. If two interested parties, such as a complainant, who wants his complaint to succeed and the defence who denies every allegation in the complaint, were setting forth different versions, the corroboration could come through that through the third party version. If the Enquiry Officer was looking for a corroboration, he could have seen none beyond the driver himself. If the driver did not support the ASI's version, then it means the case stood on the ipse dixit of the ASI. The allegation made was not ordinary, it was of a demand of a bribe, a harassment by a public servant of a member of the public and a grave threat to life of superior officer. The charge was serious. The finding of such a charge ought to be placed on a sound foundation of appropriate evidence. An inference of guilt ought to have been on statements that were acceptable and which could be seen to be natural in the course of evidence narrated. I have already observed that the Enquiry Officer did a gallant job of reproducing the entire version of witnesses and his ingenuity went no more than paraphrasing again the elaborate evidence and coming to a quick decision in 3 lines that he had found the charge to be fully established.
(3.) WHAT is more shocking is the quality of examination by the punishing authority of the Enquiry Officer's report. He has also prefaced his reasoning by lofty expression of a careful study of the evidence. He was honest at least to make a reference to DW4, the driver but strangely he did not say what the driver stated. He has observed that he had no hesitation for drawing adverse inference that he suppressed the truth and made a concocted story to save the defaulter. Even if the Superintendent of Police had stated in one line that the driver had actually given evidence that it was only the ASI who demanded the bribe, then it would make possible an inference that the Superintendent of Police at least applied his mind before rejecting his evidence. Even an expression of what the witness stated is not found in the order. If we must see any virtue in the order of the Superintendent of Police, he at least stated what is required of the Rules to state at the time of drawing of a punishment under 16.2. Punjab Police Rules that in the matter of punishment, regard must be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. The order states that he was taking a lenient view and a penalty of stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect was justified.;