Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
A.B. Pal, J.
Ashutosh Gope
Vs.
State of Tripura and Ors.
WP (C) No. 25 of 2002
Decided On: 04.01.2006
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Somik Deb, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: T.D. Majumder, Adv.
The court cannot act as an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings and may only interfere in cases of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. A long delay in approaching the court may disentitle the petitioner to relief.
Headnote:
Punishment - Police Constable - Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 - Section 307 and 323 IPC - G.R. No. 1041 of 78 - Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 79 - Rule 861 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police constable, challenged the order of punishment imposed by the Superintendent of Police after a disciplinary proceeding. The charges against him included leaving headquarters without intimation, criminal trespass, and conviction under Section 323 IPC. The disciplinary authority reduced his basic pay and treated periods of absence as not on duty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority had taken a lenient view, considering the petitioner's family condition and the direction of the High Court. The court dismissed the petition, citing the long delay in approaching the court and lack of merit.
Issues: Validity of the punishment order, interpretation of the direction of the High Court, and the delay in approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it cannot act as an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings and can only interfere in cases of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. The court also noted that a long delay in approaching the court may disentitle the petitioner to relief.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merit and the long delay in approaching the court.
A.B. Pal, J.
1. By this writ petition filed on 31.1.02, the Petitioner who is a Police constable has called in question the correctness and legality of the order of punishment in a disciplinary proceeding which was imposed on 9.11.91 by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala, after more than ten years.
2. The Petitioner while in service as Police constable faced a proceeding on the allegation that on 9.8.77 at about 6 pm he along with two others attacked and severely assaulted one Hemanta Bhowmik. The charges against him were framed under Section 307 and 323 IPC and after a full dressed trial he was found guilty under Section 323 IPC and slapped with a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence having been assailed by him in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 79, this Court (Y.I. Singh, J.) by judgment dated 7.2.90 upheld the conviction but allowed him to be released on Probation of Good Conduct on entering into a bond of Rs. 1000/- with one surety of the like amount. Certain observation was made in para 12 of that judgment which having a direct bearing on the present controversy is reproduced below:
12. It is represented to me by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Appellant No. 1 Ashutosh Gope is now serving as a Constable in the Police department and that the conviction will affect his service. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the trivial nature of the offence committed by him, I direct that the conviction shall not affect his service.
3. On 12.10.90, after a period of more than one and a half years from the date of disposal of the aforesaid criminal appeal by this Court, the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala being the disciplinary authority proposed to hold inquiry against the Petitioner herein under Rule 861 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 on various allegations of misconduct. Six articles of charges were framed against him in that proceeding which are briefly noted below:
(I) On 15.8.88 about 9 am, he left the headquarters without any intimation to the authority and did not return for duty till 19.8.88, a conduct unbecoming of a Police personnel;
(II) On 13.8.85, he along with two others committed criminal trespass into the house of Smt. Gita Rani Biswas, W/O Shri Chittaranjan Biswas;
(III) On 13.8.88 at 10 pm he again committed criminal trespass in the house of Smt. Gita Rani Biswas, W/O Shri Chittaranjan Biswas and outraged her modesty;
(IV) On l4.8.90 at about 10 pm he again committed criminal terspass into the house of Smt. Gita Rani Biswas, W/O Shri Chittaranjan Biswas and attempted to assault them;
(V) He was convicted and sentenced imprisonment under Section 323 IPC in G.R. No. 1041 of 78;
(VI) The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court maintained the conviction but released him on Probation of Good Conduct.
After inquiry during which all reasonable opportunities were provided, the disciplinary authority passed the final order on 9.11.91 holding that only charge Nos. (1), (V) and (VI) have been well proved while other charges failed But while imposing penalty the disciplinary authority made following observation:
Considering the facts and circumstances and the family condition of the delinquent C/102 Ashutosh Gope, a lenient view is taken and pass following final order giving him a fair chance to himself.
(I) His basic pay reduced to the minimum stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect;
(II) The period spent by him under suspension from 9.8.77 to 5.11.87 and from 19.8.88 to 23.4.90 is treated as not on duty and he will not get more than what he has already been drawing during the suspension period.
(III) The period of unauthorized absence from duty from 15.8.88 to 19.8.88 is treated as without break of service.
This final order of punishment dated 9.11.91 has been impugned in the present writ petition.
4. I have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel for the Respon
