Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Wangja Wangsu S/o Late Tingkap Wangsu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 315, 316 (AP) of 2018
Decided On : 27-05-2024
Penalty - Departmental Proceeding - Longding Police Station - Section 121 IPC R/W 10/13 of the UAP Act - [Section 121 IPC, Section 10/13 of the UAP Act] - The court considered the joint proceeding against the constables detailed for sentry guard duty at Longding Police Station and the escape of under-trial prisoners. The penalty of withholding 1 year increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the constables for negligence in performing sentry guard duty. The court found that the escape of the prisoners was facilitated by the absence of the constables from the guard room after their duty, and upheld the penalty based on the evidence and lack of individual responsibility for the escape.
Fact of the Case:
The constables were detailed for sentry guard duty at Longding Police Station. The under-trial prisoners escaped due to alleged negligence of the constables, leading to the imposition of the penalty of withholding 1 year increment with cumulative effect.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the constables' absence from the guard room after their duty facilitated the escape of the prisoners. It upheld the penalty based on the evidence and lack of individual responsibility for the escape.
Issues: The main issue was whether the constables' absence facilitated the escape of the prisoners and if the penalty imposed was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the constables' absence from the guard room after their duty facilitated the escape of the prisoners, and the penalty imposed was justified based on the evidence and lack of individual responsibility for the escape.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the penalty imposed on the constables was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
1. The above noted writ petitions pertain to a challenge by the petitioners therein to a penalty as imposed upon them in pursuance to a common Departmental proceeding instituted against them and 6(six) others by issuance of a common memorandum of charge and also by holding of a joint Enquiry in the matter. The penalty as imposed in the matter was so issued common to all the delinquents involved in the said proceeding. Accordingly, both the above noted writ petitions are taken up for consideration by this order jointly. The present order would dispose of both the above noted writ petitions.
2. Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioners in the above noted writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) have instituted the present proceedings presenting a challenge to an order dated 31.01.2010 issued by the disciplinary authority imposing on each of them the penalty of withholding 1(one) year increment with cumulative effect.
4. The facts as requisite for the purpose of adjudicating the issue arising in the above noted writ petitions are noticed in brief herein-below:
The petitioners who are constables were detailed for sentry guard duty along with 6(six) others constables at Longding Police Station. The petitioner along with 6(six) others were so engaged for sentry guard duty in respect of the accused persons who were arrested in connection with Longding P.S. Case No. 27/09, under Section 121 IPC R/W 10/13 of the UAP Act. During the period when the petitioners were so engaged, more specifically on 28.02.2010 at around 05:55 hrs, the said under-trial prisoners had managed to escape from the said lockup by taking advantage of the alleged negligence committed in the matter by the person detailed to guard them including the petitioners herein. Accordingly, on a preliminary enquiry being made in the matter and a misconduct being evident on the part of the petitioners as well as other 6(six) personnels detailed for sentry duty; the disciplinary authority vide memorandum dated 13.04.2011 proceeded to draw up Departmental proceedings against them. The Articles of Charge No. 1 as levelled against the petitioners and 6(six) other personnels pertains to a lapse committed by the delinquents involved in performing sentry guard duty at Longding Police Station. The petitioners and other persons so covered by the said Memorandum of Charge were also alleged to have not stayed back in the guard room of the Police Station after completion of their sentry duty as per roster, which was contended to have facilitated the escape of the 3(three) UTPs. The petitioners herein on receipt of the said memorandum of charge, proceeded to submit their respective replies thereto denying the allegations so levelled against them. Being not satisfied with the replies as submitted in the matter the disciplinary authority proceeded to direct for holding of an enquiry in the matter and an Enquiry Officer came to be appointed. The petitioners duly participated in the said enquiry so held.
5. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer proceeded to submit his enquiry report. The enquiry report as submitted by the Inquiry Officer was forwarded to the petitioners herein and the petitioners submitted their individual representation against the same. The disciplinary authority on considering the materials coming on record and appreciating the contentions made by the petitioner in their representation so preferred against the enquiry report, proceeded vide the order dated 31.01.2011 to impose upon the petitioners the penalty of withholding of 1(one) year increment with cumulative effect. The disciplinary authority in his said order had noticed that in the facts and circumstances involved in the matter, individual responsibility of the police personnel detailed for the gua
AI
The penalty imposed for negligence in duty was upheld as proportionate and justified, emphasizing the importance of discipline in a disciplined force.
The court established that departmental proceedings can result in disciplinary action even after a criminal acquittal, as the standards of proof and the nature of evidence required in such proceeding....
The court established that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve an individual from disciplinary action, as the standards of proof and the nature of evidence required in departm....
The acquittal by a criminal court does not absolve a person from liability under disciplinary jurisdiction, and the nature of evidence in criminal trial is different from departmental proceedings.
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in eyes of law.
The court overturned the removal of service, finding the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, violating the principles of natural justice and the proportionality standar....
The court affirmed the validity of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of removal from service for unauthorized absence, emphasizing adherence to procedural safeguards and the appellant's fai....
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
