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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Shri Tayi Bodung – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of A.P. And Ors.- Respondents
WP(C)/668/2018
Decided On : 04-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: MR.V Jamoh, MrD Panging, Mr.M Doji, M Gibi, MS.E Perme, G Basar, Marge D, A Modi, O Tayeng, MS.D Tamuk
For the Respondent: GA

IMPORTANT POINT
The penalty imposed for negligence in duty was upheld as proportionate and justified, emphasizing the importance of discipline in a disciplined force.

Headnote:

(A) Disciplinary Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner challenged the penalty of withholding two years' service increment imposed for negligence during duty, leading to escape of a UTP. The enquiry report established negligence, and the petitioner's claims of being under medication were not substantiated. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline within the force and upheld the penalty as proportionate to the misconduct. (Paras 18, 19, 24)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope - The court reiterated that it cannot substitute its opinion for that of the disciplinary authority unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate. (Paras 20, 21)

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. Dicky Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Goter Ete, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner, in the present proceedings, has presented a challenge to an order dated 14.08.2012, issued by the Commandant 2nd AAP Bn, BHQ, Aalo; imposing upon the petitioner, the penalty of withholding 02(two) years’ service increment with cumulative effect, on conclusion of a departmental proceeding so instituted against him.

3. A departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner along with three others personnel of 2ndBn D-Coy, Aalo, vide issuance of a Memorandum dated 22.03.2010. The petitioner and the other co-delinquents were so charged for negligence in guarding one UTP Jumdo Ete at District Hospital, Aalo. It was the specific allegation against the petitioner herein that he had slept during his sentry duty which had facilitated the UTP to escape from custody. The other three co-delinquents were also alleged to have not performed their duties in the manner required which had also facilitated escape of the said UTP. The written statement submitted by the petitioner not being found to be satisfactory, a departmental proceeding was ordered in the matter and an Enquiry Officer along with a Presenting Officer came to be so appointed.

4. The Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of the enquiry, proceeded to submit his enquiry report in the matter on 30.03.2012; and therein, had held that the petitioner herein along with one Constable Bunnia Dui were negligent in discharging their duties and the same had facilitated the said UTP to escape from custody. Accordingly, the charges so leveled against the petitioner vide the Memorandum of Charge dated 22.03.2010 was held to be proved. The said enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner herein; however, no representation against the same was submitted in the matter by the petitioner. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority proceeded to consider the enquiry report and vide order dated 14.08.2010, after discussing the materials coming on record, as well as the findings so recorded by the Enquiry Officer, proceeded to impose the penalty of withholding of two years’ service increment with cumulative effect on the petitioner herein, for his gross negligence of duty.

5. The petitioner instituted an appeal against the order dated 14.08.2010, passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority, vide order dated 22.09.2016, on consideration of the contentions so raised in the appeal and also appreciating that the appeal was so submitted after a lapse of 06(six) years from the date of imposition of penalty upon him by the disciplinary authority, proceeded vide the order dated 14.08.2010, to reject the appeal on the ground of being time barred and also being devoid of merit.

6. The petitioner thereafter, preferred a revision petition. The revisioning authority, on consideration of the revision petition so filed by the petitioner, proceeded to reject the petition so preferred by the petitioner herein, thereby confirming the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.

7. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner for the lapse so noticed in discharge by him of the duties while guarding the UTP at District Hospital, Aalo on 05.03.2010, was so done without appreciating the fact that the petitioner, for the ailments suffered by him, was undergoing treatment and was taking medicines which had the effect of inducing sleep. It is submitted by Mr. Panging, learned counsel that on account of the medicines being so taken by the petitioner, he had felt asleep while guarding the UTP on the said date. It is further projected by Mr. Panging, that the others co-delinquents who were also detailed for guarding the UTP along with the peti

        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