GOURI SHANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of mandamus to quash the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the Orissa Police Force.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Orissa Police Force in 1965 as a Writer Constable. In due course he was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Sub-Inspector. In the year 1970 he was posted as such a Fagu anti-smuggling post under Raruan Police Station in Mayurbhanj district. While serving in such capacity, allegations of corruption were made against him. After preliminary enquiry a disciplinary proceeding was started and charge was framed against him in proceeding No. 34 of 1972 for misconduct on the grounds of acceptance of illegal gratification and disobedience of orders and instructions of higher authorities. He submitted his statement dt. 5-9-72 denying the charges (Annexure 1). In the year 1973 he was transferred to Khunta Police Station. On a single occasion he attended the disciplinary proceeding at Raruan Police Station, but on account of non-attendance of witnesses the proceeding was adjourned. In the same year he was transferred to Phulbani district and while on transit he received copies of statements of witnesses recorded in his absence and without any notice to him on 18-3-73 (Annexure 2). In Phulbani district he came to be posted at Boudh Police Station. On 21-5-75 the Officer-in-charge of Boudh Police Station received a wireless message from the Superintendent of Police, Phulbani directing the petitioner to appear before the Circle Inspector, Karanjia on 24-5-75 to take part in the disciplinary proceeding. The Officer-in-charge, Boudh Police Station gave a reply message to the effect that the petitioner was undergoing treatment at the Government hospital at Boudh since 18-5-75. Again on 18-6-75 the said Officer-in-charge received a wireless message in which the petitioner was directed to attend the aforesaid proceeding on 19-6-75 and 20-6-75 at Raruan Police Station before the Circle Inspector, Karanjia. The Officer-in-charge, Boudh sent a reply to the effect that as the message was received on 18-6-75, it was not possible on the part of the petitioner to proceed to Raruan Police Station by covering the long distance within a very short time. Besides, the Superintendent of Police was expected to inspect the police station during the month. So he requested for an adjournment of the proceeding. Adjournment was, however, refused and witnesses were examined in the absence of the petitioner. On 27-6-75 the Officer-in-charge, Boudh Police Station received another message directing the petitioner to submit a written explanation. A reply was sent to the effect that on account of the inspection of the Superintendent of Police, the police officers of the station were busy and the car festival was ahead. He requested to fix a date after 25-7-75 for submission of the written explanation. Without paying any heed to the aforesaid request the Enquiring Officer completed the proceeding ex parte and submitted his report on 1-7-75, wherein, he found that all the charges brought against the petitioner were established. On receipt of the report of enquiry, the Superintendent of Police Mayurbhanj, by order dt. 28-8-75, accepted the same and directed the petitioner to show-cause by 15-9-75 as to why he should not be dismissed from the police force. The petitioner showed cause (Annexure 3/2). The Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj, however, by order dt. 25-9-75, dismissed the petitioner from service (Annexure 4). The petitioner thereafter appealed to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack against the order of dismissal. The appeal was rejected by order dt. 5-6-76 (Annexure 5). He submitted a revision petition before the Inspector-General of Police which was also rejected on 4-3-78 (Annexure 6). Ultimately his representation to the State Government was rejected on 7-11-79 (Annexure 7). It is inter alia contended that the order of dismissal (Annexure 4) was passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself in the disciplinary proceeding and so there was flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the Orissa Police Force (Annexure 4) and all subsequent orders of the authorities (Annexures 5, 6 and 7) are liable to be quashed.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of the opposite parties it has been stated that while the petitioner was serving in the position of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Fagu anti-smuggling post under Raruan Police Station a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for acceptance of illegal gratification, insubordination, disobedience of orders and acting contrary to law on 28-12-72 in proceeding Nos. 34 of 72. After his transfer to Khunta Police Station he was duly intimated to appear on 18-3-73 to take part in the proceeding. On 17-3-73, however, the Circle Inspector of Udala requested the Enquiring Officer to fix up a date after 25-3-75 as the petitioner was to remain busy for the Dola festivals. The message was received in the office of the Circle Inspector, Karanjia on 19-3-73. Although the petitioner was absent on 18-3-73, the witnesses present were examined and copies of their statements were communicated to the petitioner. The proceeding was then posted to 24-4-75 on which date the petitioner neither turned up nor sent any intimation for adjournment. Therefore, the witnesses present were examined despite his absence. The proceeding was again posted to 21-5-75. The Enquiring Officer did not receive any intimation from the petitioner and so he posted the proceeding to 19-6-75 and 20-6-75. On the aforesaid dates the petitioner was not present and so despite his absence the Enquiring Officer examined witnesses. A wireless message was, however, received on 25-6-75 for adjournment of the proceeding. The Enquiring Officer sent copies of statements of the witnesses and called upon him to adduce his defence on 28-6-75. But the petitioner did not adduce any defence nor furnished any written defence. On 30-6-75 the petitioner sent a letter to the Enquiring Officer requesting him to fix the date of enquiry after the car festival. The prayer was rejected and the Enquiring Officer having closed the proceeding submitted his report on 1-7-75. The Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj accepted the report of enquiry by which the charges brought against the petitioner had been held to have been proved. Therefore, he issued second notice to the petitioner to show-cause why he should not be dismissed from the police force. The petitioner showed cause and after considering the same, the Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from the Orissa Police Force which took effect on 8-10-75. It is further stated that his appeal, revision and representation were rightly rejected by the authorities concerned. It is averred that principles of natural justice were not at all violated and the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.