Back
2016 Supreme(Gau) 729
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT Kohima Bench
M.R. Pathak, J.
Shri Samanungba Ao, S/o. Shri Repaliba - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Nagaland Represented by the Chief Secretary - Respondent
WP(C) No. 164 (K) of 2014
Decided On :12-08-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Supu Jamir, Mr. Temsumeren, Ms. Wangshikokia and Ms. Jayu, Advocates
For the Respondents:Ms. S. Mere, Govt. Advocate, Nagaland
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 21(a), 27 – Constitution of India – Article 311(2) – Learned counsel for the petitioner – After completion of his basic training, he was confirmed in his service as an Armed Branch Constable being ABC 2784 and later, he was placed under the Superintendent of Police at Mokokchung, Nagaland –While the petitioner was on his way to Mokokchung from Dimapur, the vehicle in which he was travelling was halted at Tsutapela check gate and on being searched by police, 3 (three) grams of brown sugar, a banned substance, was ceized from the person of the petitioner that was concealed in his socks – Held, It is already seen that Rule 11 of the 1967 Rules pertaining to special procedure in certain cases notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 9 of the said Rules incorporates the principle contained in the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution and as per the same it is not at all necessary for the disciplinary authority to order a fresh departmental inquiry which is dispensed with otherwise required as per Rule 9 of 1967 Rules equivalent to Article 311(2) and the disciplinary authority, after considering the circumstances of the case, has the undoubted power to inflict any major penalty on the convicted Government employee without any further departmental inquiry, if the said authority is of the opinion that it is not desirable or conducive in the interests of administration to retain such an employee in service since the said employee has been found to be guilty and convicted for criminal offence for a serious offence involving banned substances like brown sugar in the presence –Petition dismissed.
M.R. Pathak, J.
Heard Mr. Supu Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Mere, learned Govt. Advocate, Nagaland for the respondents.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Zumheboto, Nagaland by his order dated 19.07.2000 appointed the petitioner as a Constable and accordingly, he joined his service under the said Superintendent of Police, Zumheboto, Nagaland. After completion of his basic training, he was confirmed in his service as an Armed Branch Constable being ABC 2784 and later, he was placed under the Superintendent of Police at Mokokchung, Nagaland.
3. On 11.11.2005, while the petitioner was on his way to Mokokchung from Dimapur, the vehicle in which he was travelling was halted at Tsutapela check gate and on being searched by police, 3 (three) grams of brown sugar, a banned substance, was ceized from the person of the petitioner that was concealed in his socks. Accordingly, he was arrested and the Officer-in-Charge of Mokokchung Police Station-I was informed and on the next day i.e. on 12.11.2005 the concerned Sub-Inspector of the said check gate lodged the FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Mokokchung Police Station-I which was registered as Mokokchung Police Station-I Case No. 32/2005 corresponding to GR 80/2005 under Section 27 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Later, the SP, Mokokchung, Nagaland by his order dated 28.04.2006 suspended the petitioner from service w.e.f. 11.11.2005 with the direction that without his prior permission the petitioner shall not leave the Headquarter and that he is entitles to draw subsistence allowance as prescribed in the said order.
4. After considering the investigation report submitted by the police and hearing both, the prosecution and the defence including the petitioner herein, and as the petitioner, at the time of framing of charge of the case, admitting his guilt pleaded guilty, learned Special Judge i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) by his order dated 29.01.2007 convicted the petitioner under Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000/- and in default to pay the said fine, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.
5. As the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case under Section 27 of the NDPS Act by the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2007 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Mokokchung in Mokokchung Police Station-I Case No. 32/2005 corresponding to GR 80/2005; the SP, Mokochung by his order No. MDP/RO-8-07-08/148 dated 23.04.2007 exercising his statutory power conferred under Rule 9(10) of the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967, dismissed the petitioner from his service with immediate effect and struck off his name from the strength of DEF, Mokokchung with immediate effect with the observation that all sums due to the petitioner are forfeited to the Government of Nagaland. The Superintendent of Police, Mokokchung passed the order on 23.04.2007 as he was convicted under Section 27 of the NDPS Act by the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2007 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Mokokchung.
6. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner earlier approached this Court in a writ petition being WP(C) No. 118(K) of 2011 praying for amongst others-(i) to quash and set aside the said dismissal order dated 23.04.2007 passed by the SP, Mokokchung, (ii) to direct the respondents to pay all the consequential service benefit from the date of illegal dismissal till his reinstatement in service and (iii) to pass any such further order or directions as the Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 20.03.2014 disposed of the said WP(C) No. 118(K) 2011 directing the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of said order before the concerned appellate authority as per the Nagaland Services (Disci
