Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Arun Sawin S/o Shri Winson Sawin Tutsa – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 183 of 2021
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Natural Justice - Departmental Inquiry - Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 - The court found that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and the inquiry was conducted in a biased and malicious manner. The court also found that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was grossly disproportionate, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the 3rd IRBN, was removed from service following a departmental proceeding initiated against him. The petitioner was accused of unauthorized absence and attempting to extort money, leading to his arrest and subsequent acquittal. The petitioner challenged the order of removal, alleging violation of rules and denial of justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and the inquiry was conducted in a biased and malicious manner. The court also found that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was grossly disproportionate.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the impugned order of removal suffered from any infirmity or illegality and whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the departmental inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and the inquiry was conducted in a biased and malicious manner. The court also found that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was grossly disproportionate, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order of removal, and directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his service with all consequential benefits. The respondent was also given the liberty to proceed against the petitioner from the stage of recording of evidence, giving all reasonable opportunity of being heard, if so advised.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh for the state respondents.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Shri Arun Sawin has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 17th June/2014, No. 3rd IRBN/BHQ/SJA/DE-39/13, passed by respondent No. 5, the Commandant 3rd IRBN, Head Quarter, Seijosa, Pakke Kessang, Arunachal Pradesh, pursuant to a departmental proceeding, initiated against him by the respondents. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order dated 17.06.2014, the petitioner, who was serving in 3rd IRBN, Head Quarter, Seijosa, Pakke Kessang, Arunachal Pradesh, as Constable, was removed from service.
3. The background facts leading to filing of this writ petition is adumbrated herein-below:
But, unfortunately, while he was returning from his native place to Itanagar, he had missed the bus and remained stranded at Margherita Bazar. There he met one of his old friend namely, Shri Tawang Khetry at Margherita Bus Stand in Assam, who also missed the bus to Itanagar. Then they have decided to proceed to Miao and hired a Taxi. While they were proceeding toward Miao, they got down at Jagun to purchase betel nut and cigarrete and involved in an altercation with a shopkeeper in connection with change and the shop keeper then informed the Jagun Police Station and then police came and took them into the custody and a case, being Lekhapani PS Case No. 06/2013 was registered under section 384 IPC read with section 25(i) (A) of the Arms Act. On 22.02.2013, after languishing in jail hazoot for a period of 48 days, he was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia. In the meantime, on getting information of that incident, the Commandant, 3rd IRBN, immediately placed him under suspension, and drawn up a departmental proceeding and appointed one Inquiry Officer and the said officer had examined four witnesses but he did not allow him to cross-examine the witnesses and submitted inquiry report hold that the charges proved and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, vide impugned order dated 17.06.2014, had removed him from service. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal on 28.07.2014 and since then the appeal has been pending before the Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh, PHQ, Itanagar till date. Thereafter, on 09.09.2019, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam has acquitted him from all the charges leveled against him.”
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, dated 17.06.2014, for removal from his service in contravention of the Rules and procedure and for refusing to grant him opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses’ and denial of justice in spite of acquittal from the criminal case, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking relief(s) as aforesaid.
5. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has filed their affidavit in opposition denying the assertions made by the petitioner. It is stated that on 22.11.2022, the petitioner was found unathorizedly absent from the duty place i.e. The Arunachal Time’s Office, E-Sect
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the principles of natural justice in the departmental inquiry, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and the reinstatement....
The absence of Presenting Officers in disciplinary proceedings violates natural justice, necessitating the setting aside of dismissal orders and reinstatement of affected personnel.
The failure to furnish an enquiry report to an employee before the imposition of a penalty and the enquiry officer assuming the dual role of judge and prosecutor are violations of natural justice tha....
The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry officer's findings and must ensure adherence to procedural rules in conducting inquiries, even amid ongoing criminal proceedings.
The non-appointment of a presenting officer in a departmental enquiry vitiates the enquiry and violates the principle of natural justice.
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
