IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings is essential, but the strict rules of evidence do not apply, allowing for a degree of flexibility in the enforcement of disciplinary rules.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

The imposition of the penalty of Dismissal from service in a disciplinary proceeding which has also been upheld by the Appellate Authority is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The challenge is based both by assailing the procedure adopted in disciplinary proceeding as well as on the merits of the charges.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, the basic facts of the case may be narrated in the following manner.

3. The petitioner was serving as a Constable (Unarmed Branch) in the Assam Police. While posted with the Police Commissionerate, Guwahati, he was placed under suspension pursuant to his arrest in connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No. 134/2014 under Sections 120B/409/468/471 of the IPC. The petitioner was also shown arrested in another police case namely, Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 759/2014 under Sections 120B/409/418/420/201 of the IPC.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice on 13.04.2015 in connection with Departmental Proceeding No. 17/2015. The gist of the allegation was that while the petitioner was attached with the Inspector Traffic, Pandu Division, Guwahati on 04.04.2014, he had misappropriated public money by forgery and duplicating R.C. Book nos. 36762 and 36763 and had indicated that those were issued by the Inspector Traffic. The petitioner had accordingly collected fines worth Rs.21,700/-and Rs.19,900/-whereas the duplicate R.C. Books collected fines worth Rs.36,300/-and Rs.24,800/-respectively. The Show Cause Notice had contained a list of witnesses of 7 (seven) numbers and a list of documents of 4 (four) numbers. The petitioner had submitted his statement of defence on 27.04.2015 by which he had given certain explanations and had prayed for accepting the same. It was stated that a Constable cannot be the custodian of government money. The use of any fake R.C. Book was denied. In the meantime, the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked on 24.05.2015.

5. Not being satisfied with the explanations submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was initiated by appointment of an Enquiry Officer vide an order dated 24.05.2015. The Reserve Inspector, Police Commissionerate, Guwahati was to be the Presenting Officer. The enquiry was accordingly conducted whereby the witnesses were examined and after such completion, the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report on 18.01.2017 holding that the allegations against the petitioner to be established. Accordingly, a second Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.02.2017. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the second Show Cause Notice which was received on 21.02.2017. The Disciplinary Authority, after consideration of the materials on record and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner had passed the impugned order dated 23.06.2017 by which the petitioner was imposed the penalty of Dismissal from service.

6. Against the aforesaid order of penalty, the petitioner had preferred a departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority on 19.07.2017. The Appellate Authority, vide the impugned order dated 11.09.2020 had however dismissed the appeal and had affirmed the imposition of the penalty. It is these actions which are the subject matter of challenge in this petition, as indicated above.

7. I have heard Shri M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri D. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri C.S. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate, Assam, who has also produced the original records of the departmental proceeding.

8. Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the charges against the petitioner were not maintainable. It is submitted that as per the existing procedure, a Constable cannot be the custodian of government money and therefore, the entire allegations of misappropriation is not maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioner was merely a Constable who was attached to the Tra