IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Maibam B.K. Singh and T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ.
W. Birbal Singh
Vs.
State of Manipur and Ors.
WA No. 84 of 2005
Decided On: 05.02.2007
Indian Penal Code - Section 457 / 380 – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Tribunal - Precise facts which would suffice for deciding present writ appeal are that while Appellant-writ Petitioner was serving as was posted at Police Station in - In month of some arms and ammunitions kept inside were stolen and said fact of stealing of arms and ammunitions was known to Appellant-writ Petitioner when he opened the lock of Arms for issuing arms and ammunitions to police personnel for their duties – Held, It may be observed that the expression sufficiency of evidence postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him - Evidence however voluminous it may be which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between alleged misconduct and charged officer is no evidence in law - Mere fact that enquiry officer has noted in his report in view of oral documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in enquiry would not in principle satisfy rule of sufficiency of evidence – Though disciplinary authority cited one witness New Delhi in support of charges he was not examined - Regarding documentary evidence referred to in enquiry report and adverted to by High Court, is order of appointment of Appellant which is a neutral fact - Enquiry officer examined charged officer but nothing is elicited to connect him with charge - Appeal allowed
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
1. The unsuccessful writ Petitioner is the Appellant in the present writ appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.4.2004 dismissing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 999/2001 filed by the Appellant-writ Petitioner assailing the order of the Superintendent of Police, Churachandpur District, Government of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur dated 17.1.2001 dismissing the Appellant-writ Petitioner from service and also the order of the appellate authority, i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police (Range-Ill) dated 26.5.2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant-writ Petitioner against the dismissal order dated 17.1.2001.
2. Heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, for the Appellant/writ Petitioner and Md. Jalaluddin, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents.
3. The precise facts which would suffice for deciding the present writ appeal are that, while the Appellant-writ Petitioner was serving as H.C. (Head Constable) was posted at Churachandpur Police Station in the year 1998. In the month of January 1998 some arms and ammunitions kept inside Malkhana/Arms Kote were stolen and the said fact of stealing of arms and ammunitions was known to the Appellant-writ Petitioner when he opened the lock of the Arms Kote on 17.1.1998 for issuing arms and ammunitions to the police personnel for their duties. Soon after knowing the said fact of stealing of the arms and ammunitions from the Malkhana/Arms Kote, the Appellant-writ Petitioner lodged a report to the Officer in-Charge, Churachandpur Police Station and registered as FIR No. 35(1)/98 under Section 457 / 380, IPC by the Churachandpur Police Station. The Deputy Inspector General of Police also visited the place of incident.
4. After about 3 years of the occurrence of the said incident, the Superintendent of Police, Churachandpur District, Government of Manipur issued an order on 13.6.2000 for placing the Appellant-writ Petitioner under suspension with immediate effect in contemplation of a Departmental Enquiry. The Superintendent of Police, Churachandpur District, Government of Manipur issued an Office Memorandum dated 21.6.2000 framing 2 articles of charges for holding departmental enquiry against the Appellant-writ Petitioner. Under the said office memorandum dated 21.6.2000 the Appellant-writ Petitioner had been asked to submit his written statement of defence not later than 5.7.2000. The 2 articles of charges are that the article No. 1 while the Appellant-writ Petitioner was posted at Churachandpur Police Station as Head Constable in the period 1997 to 1998, holding the keys of the Malkhana-cum-Arms Kote of Police Station under Inspector N. Mangi Singh, Officer in-Charge, had conspired with Inspector N. Mangi Singh (OC), S.I. N. Subolchandra Singh and Constable No. 2981 L. Ingocha Singh during their posting at Churachandpur Police Station for disposal of Government properties and seized exhibits of FIR cases kept in the Malkhana-cum-Kote and in furtherance of the conspiracy, he had caused loss of the following Government properties:
(i) One 303 MK-IV Rifle B/No. 500-0366 with magazine (defective).
(ii) One 303 MK-IV Rifle, B/No. BD/15636 (defective) Exhibits of FIR No. (i). One M-16-Assault Rifle, B/No. 19929 with magazine,
(iii) One Mag. Of G-3 Rifle
(iv) 112 rds. of M-16 Rifle
(v) 3 rds. Of G-3 Rifle
(vi) One torch light, one chain and T-Shirt and
Exhibits of FIR No. (i) One country made Carbine with magazine.
(ii) 9 rds of 9mm, (iii) 11 Cartridges of 12 bore, (iv) 6 improvised bombs, (v) one Bayonet, (vi) 5 Chargers of.303 Rifle, (vii) 4 Web belts for 12 bore Cartridge and Exhibit of FIR No. 48 (10)97 SGT PS
(i) One Pistol bearing star mark and letter
"CCCP" on the body (Russian made) with magazine Having 13 rds., one belt and one pistol cover (placed on the wooden rack)
5. Article 2 is that during the aforesaid period and while functioning as aforesaid, the Appellant-writ Petitioner with th
Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 277
Sher Bahadur v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 142
K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P. and Anr. (1999) 6 SCC 257
Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 713
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.