SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Gau) 1372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Soumitra Saikia, J.
Padmeswar Barman, S/o Lt. Rabilosan Barman – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. By The Commissioner and Secretary, Home Deptt. And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/2702 of 2018
Decided On : 21-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr R Islam
For the Respondent:Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Government Advocate

The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the need for compliance with rules of natural justice, the presence of some evidence to support findings of misconduct, and the absence of prejudice to the petitioner.

Headnote:

Disciplinary Proceedings - Removal from Service - Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Lack of Opportunity for Defence Assistance - Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a constable in the Assam Police, left his place of posting without sanctioned leave to attend to his ailing mother. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for unauthorized absence and gross negligence in duty. The petitioner challenged the imposition of penalty of removal from service and the rejection of his appeal in a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had left his place of posting without sanctioned leave and had a history of indiscipline. The court also noted that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims regarding his mother's health and his attempts to resume duty. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, and there was no evidence of prejudice caused to the petitioner. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merit.

Issues: Unauthorized absence, Lack of sanctioned leave, Gross negligence in duty, Lack of opportunity for defence assistance, Prejudice caused to the petitioner

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's unauthorized absence, history of indiscipline, failure to provide sufficient evidence, and compliance with the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The court emphasized that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the original records of the proceedings were returned to the government advocate. Any interim order was vacated, and any pending application was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside and quashing the order dated 08.09.2017 imposing a penalty of removal from service and also to set aside and quash the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Director General of Police (T&AP), Assam, Ulubari, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected and further to direct reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was recruited and appointed as a constable on 15.09.1998 in the 19th Assam Police (IR) Battalion. The petitioner joined his services in the AP Battalion at Kahilipara. Subsequently, he was transferred to 19th AP Battalion, Head Quarter, Tengakhat, Dibrugarh in the year 2016. The petitioner continued in his service without any blemish from any quarter. While he was in service, he received information on 19.02.2017 that his old and ailing widowed mother was seriously ill. He, therefore, submitted a leave application on the next day, which is on 20.02.2017, before the competent authority. However, no response was received from the competent authority. On 23.02.2017 he again received a phone call from his native place that the health condition of his mother was deteriorating and there was no one to look after his ailing mother in the home. So having found no option, the petitioner left the Headquarter without waiting for sanction of his leave and proceeded towards his native place on 24.02.2017. He reached his home on 25.02.2017. On reaching his home, he found that his mother had already undergone the Cataract operation on her right eye on 20.02.2017 at Shwahid Mukunda Kakoti Civil Hospital, Nalbari. As the mother of the petitioner could not regain her eye sight on the operated right eye, her left eye had to be operated which was undertaken in the month of April-May 2017. The petitioner however went to the Headquarter on 14.03.2017 to resume his duties before the left eye Cataract operation of her mother, but he was not allowed to enter into the Battalion Complex by the gate duty staff derailed for duty. The further case of the petitioner is that his monthly salary from the month of February, 2017 has not been received. The petitioner submitted further leave application on 08.09.2017 for granting 18 days Earned Leave. The petitioner was thereafter served with a notice dated 28.02.2017 issued by the Commandant, 19th AP (IR) Battalion, Headquarter, Tengakhat, Dibrugarh whereby the petitioner was asked to resume his duties within 5 days from the date of receipt of the notice otherwise departmental action was contemplated to be initiated against the petitioner. It is stated that he received the notice in the second week of March, 2017 and immediately thereafter he proceeded to resume his duties but he was not allowed to enter into the Battalion Complex and consequently, he could not resume his duties. A show-cause notice dated 18.05.2017 was issued to the petitioner charging him with gross negligence in duty and indisciplined conduct rendered by the petitioner which made him unfit to be retained in service as a Constable of Disciplinary police force. He was directed to submit his written explanation within 10 (ten) days and in the event he intends to inspect the documents then he should write to the signatory of the letter within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said communication and thereafter submit his explanation within 10 days from the date of completion of the inspection. Along with the said show-cause notice, statement of allegation, list of prosecution witnesses were also enclosed. The petitioner filed his reply to the said show-cause notice on 25.05.2017. Enquiry Officer was thereafter appointed who was directed to conduct the enquiry and submit findings within 30 days. The petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top