IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the substantial compliance with the procedural rules and the requirement for evidence to support the charges in a departmental enquiry.

ORDER :

1. This Petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 5.10.2011 passed in Mercy Appeal by the Director General of Police, (Annexure-P/1); the appellate order dated 17.5.2010 passed by the DIG, Rajnandgaon and the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-P/3) dated 13.1.2010 whereby the order of penalty of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority was affirmed. The petitioner has also challenged the enquiry report dated 30th December, 2009 (Annexure-R/1) and has also sought direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The quintessential facts for adjudication of the controversy in the petition are that during the period 6.2.2009, the petitioner, while posted as a Constable at Police Station Gendatola, District Rajnandgaon, committed certain misconduct. Therefore, on the following allegations, charge sheet was issued against the petitioner:

“(i) That on 06/02/2009, unauthorisedly the petitioner visited the village Khoratola, where he threatened the applicant Deolal that he will frame the applicant for having illegally kept illegal forest wood. The delinquent petitioner also threatened the applicant by abusing him and threatening him to lock him up in a room and demanded Rs.5,000/- illegal gratitude (bribe) from the applicant in exchange for not taking the above action against the applicant and thus exhibited corrupt conduct.

(ii) That on 06/02/2009, the delinquent constant no.386/petitioner was absent from “stunt to”, which was held at P.S. Gendatola and thus exhibited gross dereliction of his duties (in a heavy naxalite affected areas “stunt to” means that the police force and the constables are required to remain at a “stunt to” position so as to proceed upon immediate attack against naxalites).”

3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet, which was not found to be satisfactory and thus the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to appoint enquiry officer. During the departmental proceeding, Gurjeet Singh, Revenue Inspector, Rajnandgaon was appointed as Presenting Officer. Vide order cated 16.6.2009, Ramgopal Garg, Additional Superintendent of Police, Reserve Force, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. As the said officer proceeded on training, vide order dated 25.10.2009, Smt. Bhavna Pandey, Deputy SP, Rajnandgaon, was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

4. During the enquiry, the Department has produced as many as 7 prosecution witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. The petitioner was also granted an opportunity to lead defence wherein he has categorically chosen not to examine any defence evidence at question No.14. The petitioner exhibited 3 documents in his defence.

5. The Enquiry Officer upon conclusion of the proceeding prepared enquiry report (Annexure-R/1) dated 30th December, 2009, in which he concluded that all the charges were found proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the enquiry report afforded an opportunity to show cause by sending copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner/delinquent officer submitted his reply on 22.1.2010. Considering the enquiry report, the documents available on record and the reply filed by the delinquent officer, the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that the delinquent officer has not brought any new facts to mitigate the serious nature of charges and imposed penalty of removal from service vide Annexure-P/3, dated 30.1.2010. Against which the petitioner has preferred Departmental Appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure-P/2). Thereafter the petitioner has preferred Mercy Appeal which too has been dismissed vide order Annexure-P/1, dated 5.10.2011. Hence this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though in the instant matter, the Presenting Officer has been appointed, but the Enquiry Officer himself cross-examined not only the petitioner but also the depa