Gauhati High Court
On The Death Of Her Husband Constable No. ... vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 13 December, 2022
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010088152009
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5378/2009
ON THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND CONSTABLE NO. 963 MRIDUNISH
GOGOI
BABY DAS @ BABY GOGOI, W/O. LATE MRIDUNISH GOGOI, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE- KHUMTAI T.E., P.O.- BADULIPAR, P.S.- KAMARGAON, DIST.-
GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785619.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT,
DISPUR,GHY-6, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-7
DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-7
' DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
T.A.P. ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-7
Page No.# 2/10
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
5:THE COMMANDANT
11TH ASSAM POLICE BATTALION
DERGAON
DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. S. B. Choudhury, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. H. Sarma, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Date : 13-12-2022 Heard Ms. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed initially by one Shri Mridunish Gogoi, challenging the order vide memo no. BN -11/R/2009/16,058-66 dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Commandant, 11 th Assam Police Battalion, Dergaon, whereby Shri Mridunish Gogoi was terminated from his service. He was dismissed and removed from service w.e.f. 21.08.2009. Further to that there is a relief sought for reinstatement to his earlier service by way of the instant writ petition. It may however be relevant to mention that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the original petitioner, i.e., Mridunish Gogoi expired and this Court vide an order dated 21.03.2022 substituted his wife, who is presently the petitioner herein. For the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the order of dismissal of the husband of the petitioner was in accordance with law and the imposition of the punishment of Page No.# 3/10 dismissal was proportionate to the charge so framed, it would be relevant to take note of the facts involved in the instant writ petition.
3. The husband of the petitioner was working as Constable in the 11 th Assam Police Battalion, Dergaon. On 26.02.2009, a show cause notice was issued by the Commandant of the 11th Assam Police Battalion in connection with departmental proceeding no. 06/09, whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause under Section 65 of the Assam Police Act' 2007 read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual part III and Article 311 of the Constitution, as to why any of the penalties prescribed therein should not be inflicted upon the husband of the petitioner on the charges framed in the said statement of the allegation.
4. Upon a perusal of the show cause, which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it transpires that the allegation against the husband of the petitioner, was that while he was attached to the No. 20 Battalion Camp Saraihuji B. O. on 14.05.2009, 17.05.2009 and 11.06.2009 he was unauthorizedly absent from camp, and it was alleged that the husband of the petitioner was gambling under the influence of the liquor with the public and thereafter when brought to the camp, he created nuisance in the barrack. It was further alleged that he threatened the in- charge of the platoon and others with dire consequences. Further to that, the husband of the petitioner instead of doing his duties, left the camp and spent the time enjoying drinks outside.
5. It is also pertinent to mention that in the said show cause notice, the documents which were to be examined during the enquiry, the witnesses to be examined during the enquiry, were duly mentioned, and the husband of petitioner was asked to submit a written statement in defence within 10 days from the date of receipt of said communication, provided, if he did not intend to inspect the Page No.# 4/10 documents, which have relevance with the issue under enquiry. However, if he intended to inspect those documents, the husband of the petitioner was given the opportunity to inform the Commandant, 11th Assam A. P. Battalion within seven days from the date of receipt of the show cause and submit explanation thereafter, within 10 days from the completion of inspection. It was also mentioned that in the written statement, the delinquent was to inform, whether he would desire to be heard in person. Along with the said show cause notice, the Statement of Allegation was also forwarded.
6. The husband of the petitioner thereupon filed his reply to the said show cause notice, denying to the allegations made therein. Further, he stated that he had come from a poor backward community and his present employment was the only source of income to maintain himself and his family.
7. Thereupon, an enquiry officer was appointed. In the said enquiry proceedings, three witnesses were examined as well as three documents were exhibited. It appears from the enquiry findings of the enquiry proceedings that the husband of the petitioner was given a chance to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, but the husband of the petitioner did not avail the opportunity.
8. The Assistant Commandant, 11th Assam Police Battalion submitted an enquiry report on the basis of the enquiry conducted, stating inter-alia that it was clear that the charges against the husband of the petitioner were established. It was also found that such indisciplined conduct was also proved in the previous enquiry conducted in connection with the departmental proceedings. The said enquiry report was duly submitted before the disciplinary authority.
9. The disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner on 02.08.2009 to Page No.# 5/10 show cause as to why the husband of the petitioner should not be penalized under Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Part III. The enquiry report was duly enclosed to the said show cause notice. The husband of the petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 2.08.2009 on 12.08.2009. Thereupon, the Disciplinary authority i.e., Commandant of the 11 th Assam Police Battalion passed the order dated 24.08.2009, whereby it was duly recorded that the charges against the husband of the petitioner of gross indiscipline conduct and dereliction of duty was proved and the husband of the petitioner had also confessed to his guilt. The Disciplinary Authority also found that the husband of the petitioner was hopeless and indiscipline in government service, for which the husband of the petitioner was dismissed and removed from service w.e.f. 21.08.2009. The record further reveals on 28.08.2009, the husband of the petitioner submitted a representation to the DIG, Assam Police with a prayer to consider the said punishment imposed upon him. However, nothing was done in that regard.
10. In the In the backdrop of the above, the husband of the petitioner initially filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 24.08.2009 and praying inter-alia for his reinstatement.
11. This Court vide an order dated 04.12.2009 issued Rule making returnable in one week. The record reveals that the Respondent no. 5 had filed an affidavit-in- opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was stated that the husband of the petitioner was attached to the 26 Platoon posted at Saraihujia for operational duty and he was found in unauthorized absence on 14.05.2009, 17.05.2009 and 11.06.2009, and he was also found gambling under influence of liquor with some public. It was mentioned the husband of the petitioner was brought to the camp by three personnel of his Platoon and he created nuisance in the barrack and threatened the in-charge and others with dire consequences for bringing him to the camp from outside. It was Page No.# 6/10 further mentioned that the finding submitted by the enquiry officer, it was established that the allegations against the husband of the petitioner was established without any doubt.
12. In paragraph no. 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition it was mentioned that the husband of the petitioner was given fair chance to cross examine the PWs, but he only denied the charges but could not make any cross reference/question in defence. It was also mentioned the husband of the petitioner did not avail the chance of appointing the Defence Assistant and under such circumstances, the allegations so made of violation of principles of natural justice was totally misconceived. In paragraph no. 13 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that the decision of dismissal was taken only after proper enquiry of the department proceedings was completed and also at the final stages of the disposing of the department proceedings, the past records of service of the husband of the petitioner was also taken note of and it was found that during the short tenure of his service w.e.f. 12.02.2006 and 21.08.2009, the husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension thrice including the present departmental proceedings and in the previous departmental proceedings, he was already punished with stoppage of total (2+3) = 5 annual service increment with cumulative effect. It was also found that the stay in service of husband of the petitioner could not be considered because of his gross indisciplined conduct, willful negligence of government duties and for his final nature.
13. In the backdrop of the above pleadings and the materials so produced, this Court would examine the respective contentions of the parties.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meantime, the husband of the petitioner had expired and now the wife has been substituted as the petitioner. She submits that taking into consideration the limited scope of the jurisdiction, she would not assail the finding of the enquiry proceedings but the Page No.# 7/10 punishment so imposed upon the husband of the petitioner was totally disproportionate with the charges leveled. She submits that dismissal of service is the final death nail, and recourse to such extreme punishment is not called for in the facts and circumstances in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgement in the case of Girish Bhushan Goyal Vs. BHEL and Anothers reported in (2014) 1 SCC 82 more particularly to Paragraph no. 15.
15. On the other hand, Mr. H. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the husband of the petitioner was employed in a disciplined service. Being in the disciplined service, the husband of the petitioner has to maintain a particular code of conduct. Referring the paragraph no. 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that in a short period of three and a half years of service, the husband of the petitioner has already been suspended thrice including the present departmental proceedings, and on the earlier two occasions, the husband of the petitioner was punished with stoppage of total 5 annual increments with cumulative effect. In spite of that, the husband of the petitioner did not conduct himself in the manner as envisaged in the disciplined service, but he continued to indulge in the activities such as gambling and having liquor and remaining in unauthorized leave, apart from causing nuisance in the barrack. Under such circumstances, the imposition of penalty of dismissal in the instant case is proportionate to the charges framed against the husband of the petitioner and also upon taking into account the post conduct. He submitted that in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh Vs. Union Of India reported in (2019) 7 SCC 84, the Supreme Court had observed that in service matters while imposing penalty, the past conduct both positive and negative will be relevant not only while referring to misconduct but also in deciding the proportionality of punishment. The Court should be cautious while considering the case of an officer/soldier/employee of a disciplined force inasmuch as the same yard Page No.# 8/10 stick or sympathetic consideration as in other cases cannot be applied.
16. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, the question arises for consideration is whether the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service in the case of the husband of the petitioner was warranted or not?
17. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner have referred to the decision in the Girish Bhushan Goyal (Supra) and more particularly to paragraph 15 of the said judgment. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the facts involved therein pertain to an officer to the post of DGM (Deputy General Manager) of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. The allegations against the officer therein was that he omitted from performing his duty being a responsible vigilant officer, which amounted to negligence as against being an active participant in colluding with the employees against his employer and acted against the interest of the company. The punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the said officer just six days prior to his retirement date. The Supreme Court held in paragaraph 15 as under:
"15. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by this Court in the above referred case, we are of the opinion that dismissal order served on the appellant just 6 days prior to his retirement date is exorbitant and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct particularly, because he was not involved in active collusion with the other employees of the Company who were involved in this incident, for causing financial loss to the respondent-Company but was negligent by an act of omission. We also should not lose sight of the fact that the appellant took steps to retrieve the materials which were due against the Bill from the suppliers which rectified the error. Accordingly, the order of dismissal served on him is liable to be quashed and is accordingly, quashed. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that his negligence has caused financial loss to the respondent-Company. Therefore, keeping at par with the punishment awarded to Sh. B.S. Rana on ground of misconduct in terms of demotion to lower grade for 3 years as per letter dated 6.6.2011 from Central Public Information Officer, we award the similar punishment of deduction of one year increment on the appellant as per Rule 23 (b) of the BHEL Conduct Rules Page No.# 9/10 since the appellant already reached the age of superannuation when the order of dismissal was served on him. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30883-30884 of 2012 are allowed."
18. From the above quoted paragraph, it would transpire that the Supreme Court observed that the dismissal order served on the officer just six days prior to his retirement date was exorbitant and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, particularly because he was not involved in active collusion with other employees of the company who were involved in the act of causing financial loss to respondent company. It was only on account of the delinquent officer's negligence to act in the manner as required that the Supreme Court interfered with the imposition of punishment. The facts involved in the instant case is however different.
19. It would be seen that the husband of the petitioner was employed to a disciplined force, i.e., Assam Police. The yard stick which is to be applied, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh (Supra), in respect to the disciplined force would not be the same as in respect of other employments. The allegations as made against the husband of the petitioner were grave in nature to the effect that the husband of the petitioner was on unauthorized leave and he was found gambling under the influence of the liquor with the public and when brought to the camp, he created nuisance in the barrack and had threatened the in-charge of the platoon and others with dire consequences. These charges have been duly proved. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh (Supra) the past conduct also needs to be taken into account while deciding the proportionality of the punishment. In paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been categorically mentioned that the husband of the petitioner in his short service of three and half year have already been suspended three times including the present departmental proceedings and on the earlier two occasions, he had been punished with total (2+3)=5 annual service increments with cumulative effect. It is under such circumstances that the disciplinary Page No.# 10/10 authority had passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner. The order of dismissal in the opinion of this Court upon the attending facts is neither disproportionate nor shocks the conscience of this Court. Under such circumstances, the question of interference with the order dated 24.08.2009 is not called for.
20. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. However in the facts of the instant case, this Court is not imposing cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant