Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Shri Wangngam Lowang, S/o. Shri Wanghai Lowang - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented by the Secretary of Home, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 565(AP) of 2013
Decided On : 14-06-2024
DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - PUNISHMENT AND NATURAL JUSTICE - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 - The court discussed the principles of natural justice and the standards of proof in departmental proceedings versus criminal trials. It highlighted that the disciplinary authority's decision was based on the petitioner's supervisory negligence leading to the escape of UTPs, and the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims of innocence. The court upheld the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, emphasizing the need for accountability in sensitive duty posts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Guard Commander, was involved in a departmental enquiry following the escape of three under-trial prisoners (UTPs) from judicial custody while he was off duty. He challenged the major punishment imposed on him, arguing that he was not present during the incident and that the punishment was disproportionate compared to the leniency shown to another officer involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had a supervisory role and was responsible for ensuring the proper conduct of his subordinates. It concluded that the disciplinary authority acted within its rights in imposing punishment based on the findings of the enquiry, which indicated negligence on the part of the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate and whether the principles of natural justice were violated during the departmental enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the standards of proof in departmental proceedings differ from those in criminal trials, allowing for a lower threshold of evidence. It emphasized that the disciplinary authority's findings were valid and supported by the evidence presented during the enquiry.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner and confirming the punishment imposed.
JUDGMENT :
Mitali Thakuria, J.
Heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.
2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to accord proportionate and commensurating punishment to the petitioner apart from major penalty.
3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Departmental Enquiry Proceeding and punishment Order No. DE-020/2NDBN/RNG/07, dated 14.11.2008, issued by the Commandant, 2nd AAP BN BHQ, Aalo, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment of reduction of lower stage in the same time scale of pay with cumulative effect permanently, i.e. Rs.3,200/-, and the period of suspension w.e.f. 12.11.2007 to 27.03.2008 treated not spent in duty.
4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner along with 5 (five) numbers of police personnel, were detailed to guard Judicial Custody, Roing w.e.f. 29.10.2007 for 1 (one) month. As the duty deployment was for 1 (one) long month in the static post, the petitioner (Guard Commander) and the IInd Guard Commander decided to command guard of Judicial Custody alternatively on roster basis, i.e. 12 hours each a day. Accordingly, the roster was prepared by the petitioner along with the IInd Guard Commander and as per the roster duty, on 10.11.2007, the present petitioner was on guard duty from 8.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and thereafter he was relieved by the IInd Guard Commander and accordingly, the petitioner went for his lunch and to take rest. At about 2.30 p.m., the petitioner reported to his guard post and relieved the IInd Guard Commander and from 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., he was the In-Charge of the Guard Commander and he being the Guard Commander also assured that the UTPs were given their meal at 6.00 p.m. and thereafter he went to his residence to take rest as he was to relieve the IInd Guard Commander at 9.30 p.m. During his break hours, while he was on his residence on 10.11.2007, at around 9.15 p.m., he got a telephonic call from his IInd Guard Commander that 3 (three) UTPs managed to escape from their Judicial Custody, Roing. Immediately, the petitioner rushed to the Judicial Custody along with two Armed Police Personnel and tried their best to apprehend the escaped UTPs, but fails. On the day of incident, i.e. on 10.11.2007, at evening hours, after the petitioner left, one Constable, namely, Ct Moken Angu, was on Sentry duty from 8.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. under the command of IInd Guard Commander, opened the main door of the UTP Cell and took out one UTP, namely, Shri Bhoirab Urang, who was an accused of a murder case, and asked him to message his body. After getting his body message, the said Ct Moken Angu sent the said UTP outside of the UTP Cell to the residence of Ct Gemin Dai to purchase liquor twice. Thereafter, the said Ct Moken Angu collected the liquor from UTP and after consuming the liquor fetched by UTP Bhoirab Urang, he again asked the said UTP to bring more liquor leaving the Cell Key and service riffle to the UTP Bhoirab Urang in the Guard Room. The said Ct Moken Angu again brought one full bottle of liquor from the residence of one Lama’s residence, which is about half kilometer far from his sentry post and thereafter he drunk the liquor and also shared the liquor with the said UTP. Under intoxication, the said Ct Moken Angu entered into the main UTP Cell leaving the UTP Bhoirab Urang in the Guard Room freely with the service rifle and keys of the UTP Cell. At that time, 3 (three) other UTPs, namely, Tagume Misso, Ragmuk Padu and Sanjit Borgohain, came out from the UTP Cell and went into the Guard Room and they pushed the UTP Bhoirab Urang inside the UTP Cell and locked the main door of the UTP Cell and very comfortably walked away from the Judicial Custody, Roing. The entire incident took place between 8
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 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.
The penalty imposed for negligence in duty was upheld as proportionate and justified, emphasizing the importance of discipline in a disciplined force.
The court upheld the dismissal of a police constable for misconduct, affirming that the disciplinary proceedings adhered to natural justice and the punishment was proportionate to the charges proved.
Disciplinary findings must be based on legally admissible evidence; lack of evidence warrants judicial intervention under Article 226.
The dismissal of a police officer based on departmental proceedings was unjustified as the charges were not proven, and acquittal in criminal proceedings must be considered.
The court held that a disciplinary dismissal based on unproven charges is unjustified, especially when the employee is acquitted in related criminal proceedings.
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....
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
