JUDGMENT :

The issue which has been raised in this writ petition is with regard to a penalty of dismissal of service pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. The challenge is based on the grounds of illegality both procedural and substantial and parity in imposition of the penalty.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable (UB) and at the relevant time was serving as the Head Constable at the Dispur Police Station. An FIR was lodged in the said Police Station on 04.02.2019 by three informants with regard to illegal seizure of certain gold biscuits allegedly by the Officers of the Dispur Police Station. The FIR however does not contain names of any accused persons. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said FIR which was registered as Dispur Police Station Case No. 363/2019 under Section 392 of the IPC. Owing to such arrest, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.02.2019 which was followed by initiation of a disciplinary proceeding by issuance of a show-cause notice dated 06.04.2019. The petitioner had replied to the show-cause notice and not being satisfied, an enquiry was initiated by appointment of an Enquiry Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that though the enquiry was held, none of the relevant witnesses were produced and only one witness was produced whose version does not implicate the petitioner with any offence. The petitioner was served with a second show-cause notice with only the findings of the Enquiry Report without furnishing the entire report.

3. On 25.11.2019, the petitioner has submitted his reply and vide order dated 27.02.2020, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected and accordingly the writ petition has been filed.

4. I have heard Shri I. Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate representing all the respondents. The learned State Counsel has also produced the original records of the disciplinary proceeding.

5. Shri Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner has structured the present challenge on two broad grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the entire proceeding is vitiated as the procedure established in law was not followed at all and the petitioner was not given an effective opportunity to safeguard himself. He further submits that apart from the procedural irregularities, materials have been relied upon in a manner which is not permissible under the law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken the plea of discrimination in imposition of the penalty by citing the example of another co-delinquent, namely, Shri Nipu Kalita, who was the SI against whom the penalty imposed was only stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The learned counsel highlights that the reasons for the lesser penalty is non-examination of the relevant witnesses and the same reason was also available so far as the petitioner is concerned.

6. It is submitted that the FIR was the genesis of the departmental proceeding in which there were three number of informants and all the said informants were made witnesses and their names were given in the list of witnesses accompanying the show-cause notice dated 06.04.2019. However, none of the aforesaid informants had appeared in the enquiry and therefore the entire allegations against the petitioner stood not proved.

7. Shri Rafique, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the second show-cause notice dated 08.11.2019, only the last page of the Enquiry Report containing the findings have been forwarded. On a specific query regarding pleadings in this regard, though the learned counsel has admitted that there is no pleadings in the writ petition, he has referred to his reply dated 25.11.2019 to the second show-cause notice in which it has been categorically stated that only the findings have been furnished to him and the entire Enqu