IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, particularly when imposing severe penalties.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant-original petitioner assailing the order dated 20.06.2002 passed by the State Government, whereby the appellant-original petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service by way of punishment, after rendering almost 37 years of service. Thus, the original petitioner was deprived of all his retiral benefits. It is noticed that during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant (original petitioner) has passed away on 05.09.2020 and the appeal is represented through his legal heirs.

FACTS:

2. The petitioner joined the services as a Police Sub- Inspector (PSI) in the year 1965 and in due course, he was promoted as a Police Inspector (PI) in the year 1980 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. S.P.) in the year 1992. He reached at the age of superannuation on 31.08.2002.

3. During the period from 18.12.1990 to 15.08.1991, when he was serving as the Police Inspector and he was posted at Vejalpur Police Station, during such period, on 06.02.1991, an F.I.R. being CR No. I-57 of 1991 was registered by him against the accused persons under the provisions of Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC) and Section 25(1)(C) of the Arms Act, 1959. It appears that the FIR is registered for possessing illegal arms on the basis of the forged licenses. The investigation of the said offence was conducted in part by the petitioner and during such investigation, he was transferred on 15.08.1991 from Vejalpur Police Station and in place of the petitioner, one Shri V.K. Amliyar, Police Inspector, was posted and the papers of investigation were handed over to him.

4. After one month of taking over the charge by Shri Amliyar, he filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons on 19.09.1991. The same culminated into the trial proceedings being Criminal Case No. 2838 of 1991. By the judgment and order dated 29.04.1995, the trial Court acquitted all the accused. However, while acquitting those accused vide judgment and order dated 29.04.1995, the trial Court made certain observations against the Investigating Officer commenting upon the manner in which the investigation was done, regarding the forged licenses.

5. Taking clue from the observations recorded by the trial Court, the charge-sheet dated 31.07.1999 was issued by the Home Department, State of Gujarat to the petitioner inter alia alleging four charges as below. The same are translated and incorporated as under : -

“(i) Charge No. 1 - During the investigation Shri Singh had recovered four bogus arms licenses of another province and arms from the accused, but did not make necessary inquiry whether the said licenses were bogus or not.

(ii) Charge No. 2 - He has not obtained opinion of FSL whether the arm attached as Muddamal was in working condition or not.

(iii) Charge No. 3 - He has not attached papers of bogus arms license, seal and stamp from main accused of offence i.e. Abidbhai.

(iv) Charge No. 4 - Accused No. 3-Abbasbhai, on remand was taken to Mumbai on 14.04.1991 and according to Gujarat Police Manuals and Criminal Procedure Code, though the accused on remand should be put in lock-up at that time, however, the accused was kept by the delinquent with him in private hotel instead of keeping in police lock-up.”

6. The regular departmental inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer, vide his inquiry report dated 22.08.2000 found charge Nos. 1 and 4 not proved, whereas charge Nos. 2 and 3 were proved.

7. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report before the Disciplinary Authority, however, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings recorded with regard to the charges Nos.2 and 3 and hence, the authority issued a show-cause notic