The main legal point established in the judgment is that a departmental inquiry can be conducted against individuals for misconduct committed in their private capacity, and dismissal from service for such misconduct is within the domain of the respondent authorities.

H. Baruah, J.

1. Writ petitioners were appointed as Head Constable, Radio Mechanic, Naik Operator and Naik on 20.8.1996, 9.8.1996 and 23.9.1996 by respondent No. 5 respectively. On their appointment as such all three joined in the service on the same date of appointment. By an order dated 4.10.1996 (Annexure-1) the respondent No. 5 terminated the services of the writ petitioners with immediate effect along with one Krishna Kumar Sharma and C/GD. Jimdar Singh on the ground of production of false employment exchange registration card. The petitioners thereafter along with Krishna Kr. Sharma filed a civil rule being No. 4 of 1997 before this Court challenging the termination order dated 4.10.1996 issued by the respondent. No. 5 and this Court vide order dated 27.1.1997 quashed the impugned order of termination and directed the respondents to re-instate the petitioners along with Krishna Kumar Sharma with all consequential service benefits. While disposing the civil rule this Court made an observation that it would be open to the respondents to take up inquiry according to law, if so advised.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 27.1.1997 (Annexure-2) the petitioner along with Krishna Kumar Sharma were reinstated in their service by order dated 26.6.1998 (Annexure-3). For the purpose of drawing up of a departmental inquiry, the respondent No. 5 put all the three petitioners along with Krishna Kumar Sharma under suspension. Thereafter respondent No. 5 issued memorandum of charges to the petitioners to hold inquiry under Section 7 of the Police Act read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-III alleging that their employment exchange registration card were not genuine. Show cause reply was submitted denying the allegation of charges levelled against the petitioners. After the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, respondent No. 5 provisionally came to the conclusion that imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioners along with Naik - operator, Krishna Kumar Sharma opportuned a further representation to the writ petitioners and Krishna Kumar Sharma. While submitting representations against the proposed imposition of major penalty of dismissal the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the charge levelled against them do not fall within the purview of Section 7 of the Police Act and thereby the entire departmental inquiry is vitiated and void ab-initio. The petitioners, therefore, prayed to respondent No. 5 to exonerate them. But despite such representation, respondent No. 4 by his order dated 26.8.1999 imposed a penalty of removal from service against the petitioners. An appeal having been filed against the imposition of penalty of removal from service, respondent No. 4 rejected the same. The petitioners thereafter finding no other alternative submitted a revision petition to the Governor of Mizoram under XII of Rule 66 of Assam Police Manual, Part III on 4.8.2000, 23.10.2000 and 21.8.2000 against the order of removal and rejection of the appeal but till date their representations did not receive any attention of the Governor.

3. Respondent No. 6, whose services was also terminated along with the petitioners and Krishna Kumar Sharma for production of false and fake employment exchange card vide order dated 4.10.1996, approached this Court with a writ petition being WP(C) No. 10 of 1999 seeking redrassal against the order of termination and this Court while disposing the writ petition as aforesaid was of the view that the case of the respondent No. 6 is similarly situated with the case of all the petitioners and accordingly directed the respondent No. 5 to reinstate him in the service and per direction, the respondent No. 5 reinstated the respondent No. 6 in his service. But no departmental inquiry was held as against the respondent No. 6 nor he was punished for production of fake and false Employment Registration Card till date. At present respondent No. 6 is in the service of the police orga