Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 596
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
M.B.K.Singh, J.
Maiphulung -Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and Ors. -Resopndent
Writ Petition(C). Nos. 1363, 1383/2002
Decided On : 22-06-2006
Katherine, Jalal Uddin
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and following the prescribed procedures in disciplinary proceedings, as outlined in the Assam Police Manual, Rule 66.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Assam Police Manual, Rule 66 - Quashing of Disciplinary Proceedings and Dismissal Orders
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, serving as rifleman, were charged with grave misconduct and dereliction of duty during election duty. They were dismissed from service based on separate departmental enquiries. The petitioners challenged the dismissal orders, alleging violation of relevant rules and principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice and quashed the proceedings and dismissal orders. The authority was given the opportunity to proceed afresh in accordance with the relevant law and rules within a reasonable time.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, validity of dismissal orders, entitlement to appoint a defense assistant, sufficiency of opportunities for defense
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following the procedure prescribed in the Assam Police Manual, Rule 66, and ensuring the principles of natural justice are not violated in disciplinary proceedings. Non-appointment of a presenting officer and failure to inform the petitioners about their entitlement to appoint a defense assistant were deemed fatal to the departmental enquiries.
Final Decision: The disciplinary proceedings and dismissal orders were quashed, and the authority was given the opportunity to proceed afresh in accordance with the relevant law and rules within a reasonable time. If no fresh enquiries were initiated within the prescribed period, the petitioners were to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
2. Both the petitioners were serving as rifleman of the 5th Bn. MR. Each of the petitioners was charged separately for the commission of grave mis-conduct and dereliction of duty alleging that on 6.10.1999 at Keikai in Tamenlong District at about 12.30 hrs, while he was detailed for election duty in respect of the 13th Lok Sabha Outer Parliamentary Constituency of Manipur in Tamenglong District, he failed to use his arms and ammunition when he was confronted by some unknown UG elements and surrendered his arms and ammunitions to the unknown UG elements without offering any resistance whatsoever and that thereby, he behaved in an irresponsible and cowardly manner unbecoming of a police officer which resulted in the loss of the Government properties. Apparently, after holding a separate enquiry as against each of them, both the petitioners were dismissed from their service by the Commandant,5th Bn. MR by issuing separate orders. In WP(C) No 1363 of 2002, the petitioner is challenging the dismissal order dated 31.01.2001 issued against him by the Commandant, 5th Bn.MR purportedly basing on the findings in DE No. 28/99-5th Bn.MR dated 27.11.1999. In WP(C) No. 1383 of 2002, the petitioner is challenging the dismissal order dated 31.01.2001 issued against him by the Commandant, 5th Bn.MR dated 27.11.1999. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the petitioners, both the said departmental enquiries were held in violation of the relevant rules and also in violation of the principle of natural justice .
3. It is well settled that judicial review in matters relating to and resulting from disciplinary proceedings is not in respect of the decision but is to be confined itself with the decision making process. In the State of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow, (1994) 2 SCC 537, the Supreme Court quoted, with approval, the following passage from its earlier Judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Shri Rama Rao reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 :-
“ …………… the High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution as a court of appeal over the decision of the authority holding the departmental enquiry against a public servant; it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent findings on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds.
But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry officer is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their fi
