This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 29.1.2001 passed by Commandant, 8th Assam Police Battalion, Abhayapuri in the district of Bongaigaon imposing the penalty of stoppage of three increments in the pay scale of Constable with cumulative effect as punishment for gross-misconduct and indisciplined behaviour with a warning to be careful in future.

2. Case of the petitioner is that at the relevant point of time he was serving as Constable in the Assam Police and was posted at 8th Assam Police Battalion, Abhayapuri. He was served with a show-cause notice dated 14.11.2000 issued by his disciplinary authority, i.e., the Commandant of the Battalion to show-cause under section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 read with rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part-Ill and article 311 of the Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties prescribed therein should not be inflicted on him for the charge brought against him. The allegation against the petitioner was that while he was detailed for duty at Gossaigaon Railway Station for railway security duty on 9.11.2000, during evening roll-call, he quarrelled with the platoon commander and gave him blows because of which the platoon commander sustained injuries requiring medical treatment. Petitioner was, therefore, charged with gross-misconduct and indisciplined behaviour. The show-cause notice was accompanied by statement of allegation, list of witnesses and list of documents to prove the charge.

3. Though petitioner submitted his show-cause reply denying the allegation, the disciplinary authority decided to draw-up departmental proceeding against the petitioner. By order dated 30.11.2000, ShriA.K. Modak, 21/C 8th Assam Police Battalion was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.

4. The Enquiry Officer thereafter conducted the enquiry and after conclusion of the same, submitted his report to the disciplinary authority holding that the charge against the petitioner stood proved beyond any doubt.

5. The disciplinary authority by his forwarding letter dated 3.1.2001 furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner with the observation that he agreed with the views of the Enquiry Officer and that he was of the tentative view that petitioner should be dismissed from service.

6. Petitioner submitted his representation taking the plea that the platoon commander was the aggressor and that he had acted only in self defence. Enquiry Officer did not examine this aspect of the matter. He, therefore, prayed for dropping of the proceeding.

7. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 29.1.2001 imposing the punishment as indicated above.

8. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

9. This court by order dated 21.9.2004 had admitted the writ petition and had called for the record of the case.

10. Respondent No.4, i.e., the disciplinary authority has filed affidavit. Stand taken in the said affidavit is that during enquiry in connection with the departmental proceeding drawn up against the petitioner, the charge of gross-misconduct and indisciplined behaviour on the part of the petitioner was proved beyond any doubt. Petitioner was granted reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the disciplinary authority. During the enquiry, petitioner was informed and briefed about the charge and he cross-examined some of the prosecution witnesses. Punishment was imposed after due consideration of all relevant aspects and following the laid down procedure. There is no infirmity in the departmental proceeding as well as in the punishment imposed.

11. Heard Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority failed to consider that it was the platoon commander who was the aggressor and that the petitioner had only acted in self de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document