Gauhati High Court
Godak Taja vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors. on 20 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)2GLR20
Author: I.A. Ansari
Bench: I.A. Ansari
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J.
1. The petitioner, who is a Head Constable in Arunachal Pradesh Armed Police has approached this Court, with the help or the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ/writs setting aside and quashing the impugned order, dated 29.1.2001. (Annexure H to the writ petition), whereby the penalty of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect for a period of two years has been imposed on the petitioner following a disciplinary proceeding.
2. In a narrow compass, the petitioner's case may be put as follows: The petitioner joined as a Constable in the Armed Police in the year 1998 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable vide order dated 17.4.1993 and at the relevant time, the petitioner stood posted at the Battalion Head Quarter of 1st Arunachal Pradesh Armed Police Battalion, Chimpu. The petitioner was awarded commendation certificate in recognition of his excellent performance of duties vide order dated 17.10.1996. (Annexure D to the writ petition). The petitioner was placed under suspension by his Commandant vide order dated 20.8.2000 (Annexure E to the writ petition) and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the allegation that the petitioner had attempted to beat a shop-keeper, Pakrul Islam, with a piece of stick and broke the glass of the shop-keeper's pan shop. The petitioner was accordingly served with a memorandum containing article of charge and statement of imputation of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his whiten statement in defence denying and disputing the allegations levelled against him and upon regularly drawn proceeding, he was found guilt/ of the charge, whereas he was, in fact, dissuaded by the Enquiry Officer from cross-examining the witnesses and he was not afforded effective opportunity of hearing. The finding of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and penalty, as indicated hereinabove, was imposed on the petitioner by the impugned order, dated 29.1.2001, aforementioned. The petitioner, then, preferred filed an appeal on 8.3.2001, but the appeal was also turned down. The disciplinary authority; thus, as well as the appellate authority acted mechanically and without application of mind. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking the reliefs indicated hereinabove.
3. The respondents have contested this case by filing their affidavit-in-opposition, their case being, briefly stated, thus : The disciplinary proceeding was conducted by observing principles of natural justice. The petitioner, in his statement made before the Enquiry Officer, admitted, in effect, the charge levelled against him. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing and of cross-examining the witnesses at the time of the enquiry. The penalty awarded to the petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the charge. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on materials on record and the respondents acted legally in accepting the findings.
4. I have carefully perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by Mr. Son that the Enquiry Officer did not afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and he was not given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer, in fact, asked the petitioner, submits Mr. T. Son, to accept his guilt so that he could recommend to the higher authority to pardon the petitioner and on the assurance, so given, the petitioner admitted his guilt, but after recording statement of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, which was completely biased. It is also submitted by Mr. T. Son that the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and this was a serious lapse on the part of the disciplinary authority. This apart, submits Mr. T. Son, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect for two years without application of mind. The penalty, so imposed, is, points out Mr. T. Son, a major penalty under the relevant rules. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the penalty is, according to Mr. T. Son, very harsh and not commensurate with the gravity of the charge.
6. Controverting the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Singh has submitted that the enquiry conducted in the present case was consistent with the provisions of the relevant laws and principles of natural justice. It is also submitted by Mr. Singh that the petitioner has falsely taken the plea that he was prevailed upon by the Enquiry Officer to admit his guilt. In fact, the petitioner did not, contends Mr. Singh, cross-examine the witnesses, because he had compromised the criminal case, which the shop keeper had lodged with the police against the petitioner. This apart, submits Mr. Singh, the petitioner himself admitted that he had broken the glass of the show case at the shop and in this view of the matter, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were wholly consistent with the materials on record. It is further-submitted by Mr. Singh that the enquiry report was, deed, furnished to the petitioner and he replied thereto, but he could offer no convincing reason as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer be not accepted, it is contended by Mr. Singh that the petitioner is a man in uniform and he should behave in a civilized manner in public, but the petitioner had attempted to assault an innocent shopkeeper and broke the glass of his shop and in this view of the matter, he deserved to be severely punished, but the authorities concerned dealt with the matter leniently and left him with penalty or reduction of two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Mr. Singh, therefore, submits that the writ petition is without any merit and the same may be dismissed with costs.
7. Before entering into the merit of the rival submissions made before me on behalf of the parties, it is, to my mind, necessary, to quote an I do quote hereinbelow, for the sake of brevity, the article of charge and statement of imputation made against the petitioner:
"STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST H.C. GODAK TAJA (Under Section) 1st AAP BN BHQ (R) CHIMPU.
ARTICLE-I On 26.1.2000 at about 1730 hrs. HC Godak Taja of 1st Bn went to the shop of Md. Pokrul Islam of gangs Market and asked him for s pan. Then HC G. Taja told shopkeeper (Md. P. Islam) that s few days age when he had came to his shop for changing of a dot pen refill at that time the shopkeeper called him "TUM TUM" and by the time HC G. Taja attempted to beat the shopkeeper with s piece or stick, meanwhile the shopkeeper jumped out from the shop In fear of getting beaten up. Soon after HC G. Taja broke glasses of the pan Bhandar with his feast worth Rs. 1600. This act on the part of HC. G. Taja amounts to gross misconduct being a member or the disciplined force.
STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST HC. GODAK TAJA OF 1st AAP BN BHQ (R) CHIMPU ARTICLE-I On 26.1.2000 at about 1730 hrs. HC. Godak Taja or 1st Bn went to the shop of Md. Pokrul Islam of gangs Market and asked him for a pan. Then HC G. Taja told shopkeeper (Md. P. Islam) that s few days ago when he had came to his shop for changing of a dot pen refill at that time the shopkeeper called him "TUM TUM" and by the time HC G. Taja attempted, to beat the shopkeeper with s piece of stick, meanwhile the shopkeeper jumped out from the shop In fear of getting beaten up. Soon after HC G. Taja broke glasses of the pan Bhandar with his feast worth Rs. 1600. This act on the part of HC. G. Taja amounts to gross misconduct being a member of the disciplined force. Hence he is liable to be proceeded against departmentally."
8. Notwithstanding what the petitioner has submitted before this Court, the record of the proceeding shows that after S.I, L.N. Laskar, i.e., the Officer, who had held the preliminary enquiry in the matter, was examined in the disciplinary proceeding, as a witness, the present petitioner, on being asked to cross-examine him, stated as follows :
"On 26th January, 2000 at around 1730 hrs. I went to the pan shop of Shri Pokrul Islam to buy pan. While buying pan, I remembered earlier when I visited his shop to buy s dot pen refill, he lost the spring of my pen while changing and said 'turn turn' to me on earlier occasion. When I asked him why he said 'turn turn' to me earlier he got angry and raised his hand and pulled down one stick from the rack. I also got alarmed and tried to beat him in return but he jumped out and ran away. In the process my hand hit the show case glass and broke it whereby my hand was injured and bleeding. Neither I nor he could beat each other. This quarrel took place due to rough manner of Shri Pokrul Islam. I did not intend to quarrel with him. Acase was registered against me vide Ita P.S. case No. 20/2000. The sections being compoundable it was settled out of Court and compounded by Shri Y. Tayeng, Magistrate 2 Class, vide case No. 19/2000 State v. Godak Taja and fitting charges as compensation to Shri Pokrul Islam. This much I have to state before the authority."
9. From a bare reading of the above statement, it is clear that the petitioner did not admit his guilt ; rather, the petitioner offered his version or the occurrence. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was prevailed upon not to cross-examine the witnesses.
10. It is also worth noticing that S. I. Ananta Rai, who reached police station on receiving a telephonic information about the occurrence, clearly stated in the disciplinary proceeding that he had found the petitioner In an aggressive mood. The petitioner, I find, declined to cross-examine this witness.
11. Coupled with the above, the shopkeeper concerned, namely, Md. Pokrul Islam, when examined in the departmental proceeding, stated as follows :
"On 26.1.2000 evening at 1730 hrs. Shri G. Taja whom I did not know at that time came to my shop and asked for one pan. In the mean time he said that few days back I have called him 'tum' in Hindi before other people when he came for buying refill. When I told him I do not remember and did not say he got angered and tried to hit me with a fist. Accordingly I leaned back and raised my hand then one wooden stick that was on the rack to may hand. He hit my pan show case and broken it Thereafter, he was searching a store to throw at me but i ran away the other side. Later police came and took us to P.S. where case was registered. In this connection the case was compromised in the Court and I have received compensation for the damage. I have no more grievances against him."
12. The petitioner, it may be noted, declined to cross-examine the shopkeeper. It is also of utmost importance to note that in the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner gave the following statement:
"On 26th January, 2000 at around 1730 hrs. I went to the pan shop of Shri Pokrul Islam to by a pan while buying pan I remembered earlier when I visited his shop to buy a dot pen refill he lost the spring my pen white changing and said 'tum tum' to me on earlier occasion. When I asked nun why he said 'tum tum' to me earlier he got angry and raised his hand and pulled down one stick from the rack. I also got alarmed and tried to beat him In return but he jumped out and ran away. In the process my band hit the show case glass and broke it whereby my hand was injured and bleeding. Neither I nor he could beat each other. This quarrel took place due to rough manner of Shri Pokrul Islam. I did not intend to quarrel with him. A case was registered against me vide Ita P. S. case No. 20/ 2GOG. The sections being compoundable it was settled out of Court and compounded by Shri Y. Tayeng, Magistrate 2nd Class, vide case No. 19/ 2000 State v. Godak Taja and fitting charges as compensation to Shri Pokrul Islam. This much I have to state before the authority."
13. From the above statement of the petitioner, it becomes clear that he did project his version of the occurrence before the Enquiry Officer. Viewed from this angle also, it is clear that the petitioner has falsely tried to project that he was not afforded effective opportunity of hearing and/or that he was prevailed upon not to cross-examine the witnesses. Had the petitioner been so prevailed upon, he would not have offered his version of the occurrence. What, however, transpires from a combined reading of all the statements on record is that the petitioner tried to project that an altercation had taken place between him and the shopkeeper aforementioned and that it was the shopkeeper, who had, first tried to assault the petitioner. While so claiming, the petitioner himself asserted that he too had tried to beat the shopkeeper, but the shopkeeper jumped out of the shop and ran away and in the process, his hand hit the showcase glass and the same got broken. If the shopkeeper had really tried to beat the petitioner with a stick, there was no reason for him to run away from the shop and there was apparently no reason for the petitioner to sustain injury on his hand. The inference that can be easily drawn is that the petitioner tried to assault the shopkeeper and also broke the glass of the pan shop.
14. In the above view of the matter, findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse and/or without foundation. This apart, while exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court does not act as a Court of appeal and it can interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer reached in a disciplinary proceeding only when the findings, are perverse. In the case at hand the petitioner has miserably failed to show that the findings are perverse.
15. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has alleged that the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before the penalty was imposed, the record reveals that vide letter, dated BHQ/BN-1/DE/ 146/2000 dated 30.11.2000, the disciplinary authority had furnished a copy or enquiry report to the petitioner before imposing the penalty and the petitioner too, it appears from record, had submitted his show pause vide his representation, dated 22.12.2000, but in this representation, the petitioner did not utter a worn to show as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer should not be accepted and he merely took the plea that the Enquiry Officer had prevailed upon him not to contest the proceeding. Thus, petitioner's contention that he was not furnished with a copy of the Enquiry Report before the penalty was imposed on him is belied by the materials on record.
16. The only question for determination, which, now, remains is this is the penalty imposed on the petitioner commensurate with the gravity of the offence ? In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner was, admittedly, given a commendation certificate for his satisfactory performance of duties. There is also nothing on record to show that the petitioner's conduct or behaviour has not, in general, been satisfactory.
17. Keeping in view the above, when the charge framed against the petitioner is carefully considered, it transpires that what had happened at the pan shop was really a result of an altercation between the petitioner and the shopkeeper. Though the petitioner lost his cool and behaved in a manner, which a man in uniform ought not to have behaved, the fact remains that the penalty of reduction of two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect is harsher than what the penalty should have been. At the same time, considering the facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, the petitioner cannot be leniently let off inasmuch as being a man in uniform, his behaviour in public ought to have been exemplary and the lapse on his part was a serious misconduct. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety, I am of the view that penalty of reduction of increment for one year without cumulative effect should have been imposed on the petitioner.
18. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition partly succeeds and the penalty imposed on the petitioner is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall suffer penalty of reduction of increments for one v year without cumulative effect.
19. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stand disposed of.
20. No order as to costs.