Heard.

During the pendency of the petition, the original petitioner died and his legal representatives have been allowed by this Court to be substituted in place of the original petitioner and prosecute the petition.

The petitioner had filed Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal, Raipur. After abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, the case was transferred to this Court.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 03/05/1999 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police by which major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the basis of charges of misconduct in a departmental enquiry.

3. While the petitioner was posted and working as Constable (Radio) at Jagdalpur, a charge sheet was issued to him on 09/06/1998 on certain allegations of misconduct along with list of witnesses and documents. In the charge sheet, five charges were leveled against the petitioner which related to an alleged misconduct of the petitioner entering the house of the colleague employee repeatedly in the night in the absence of the colleague employee Constable and exhibiting indecent behaviour followed by indecent proposals made to the wife of the colleague employee. The petitioner submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and later on, it led to an enquiry held by an enquiry officer. As no Presenting Officer was appointed, upon receipt of charge sheet and relevant documents from the office of the disciplinary authority, the enquiry officer summoned the witnesses of the prosecution and examined them. All the witnesses (except witness-Ku. Archana Sharma) were allowed to be cross examined. The petitioner led defence evidence. As no Presenting Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority, witnesses of defence were not cross examined. After completion of enquiry, enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer, by which, five charges were found proved. On the basis of enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing penalty. After receipt of reply, the disciplinary authority, vide impugned order, imposed penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. A ground was raised that the petitioner was not permitted to cross examine the prosecution witness – Ku. Archana Sharma. Appreciating this ground, the appellate authority directed the enquiry officer to re-examine Ku. Archana Sharma and afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing to re-examine and submit report. Thereafter, the enquiry officer summoned Ku. Archana Sharma who was re-examined. The petitioner in his cross examination refused to cross examine. Thereafter, a supplementary report was forwarded to the appellate authority. Finally, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. A Mercy Appeal was also dismissed which led to filing of this petition.

4. Assailing correctness and validity of imposition of penalty of dismissal from service, learned counsel for the petitioner raises as many as five grounds. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as far as charge No.1 is concerned, the same is vague and not specific as to what indecent words were used by the petitioner which could be said to be derogatory to the lady family members of the colleague employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that neither in the charges nor in the statement of allegations, specific misbehavior or indecent behavior was alleged. Further submission is that there was no specific allegation of any indecent proposal by the petitioner to the wife of the colleague employee of offering her money. As this particular charge was considered to be little grave in nature leading to penalty, vagueness of charge seriously prejudiced the petitioner in his defence. Next submission is that the preliminary enquiry was conducted by Shri Umashankar Ojha, Inspector (T/C) whereas Shri Ojha is not the competent authority.