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.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Saroj Chettri, has put to challenge the enquiry report dated 06.12.2007, submitted by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and also the dismissal from service of the petitioner, vide Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 16.04.2015; Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 04.11.2015 and Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 20.02.2020.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned enquiry report dated 06.12.2007, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him in the departmental enquiry and thereafter, vide impugned order dated 16.04.2015, the petitioner was dismissed from service; vide impugned order dated 04.11.2015, the respondent authorities had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 20.02.2020, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:

“The petitioner, Sri Saroj Chettri was serving as a Constable at 1st AAPBn at Itanagar Police Station and he was detailed for guarding the Under Trial Prisoner (UTP) Cell. In the intervening night of 15.01.2007 - 16.01.2007, one UTP, namely, Sri Gungte Tugung escaped from custody by cutting ventilator rods. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged with the Itanagar Police Station on 16.01.2007 and a case under Sections 223/224 of the IPC was registered. Thereafter, the petitioner, along with others, was placed under suspension as per Rule 23(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (“Rules of 1999?, for short), vide order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 17.01.2007. After the said incident, an enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Papum Pare and a report was submitted in connection with the escape of UTP, Sri Gungte Tugung, wherein it is indicated that the Officer In-Charge Sri R. Monpa, SI Sri Inya Ete and the petitioner were responsible for failure in discharging their duties.

Thereafter, article of charges were framed against the Officer In-Charge Sri R. Monpa, SI Sri Inya Ete and the petitioner on the imputation of misconduct and failure to discharge their duties as the Officer In-Charge of the Police Station, the SI assigned to UTP Cell and the Constable guarding the UTP Cell, vide Memorandum No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 28.02.2007. Thereafter, the suspension order of the petitioner dated 17.01.2007, was revoked vide Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 14.05.2007, pending departmental proceeding against him and two others. The petitioner had submitted his statement in defence on 15.11.2007, wherein he confessed that a pair of boot and an empty bottle containing liquid medicine for skin disease were given to one UTP, namely, Debia Basumatary and not to the escaped UTP, Sri Gungte Tugung and further clarified that during his duty time only cutting of the ventilator grill was not done as per the enquiry report.

Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report on 06.12.2007, holding that the article of charges against the petitioner was proved, but was not proved against the other two charged officers and the petitioner was solely held responsible for the escape of UTP, Sri Gungte Tugung and that Inspector Sri R. Monpa and SI Sri Inya Ete were also responsible for negligence in discharging their duties.

Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted one representation against the departmental enquiry on 31.12.2007 and then show cause notice was issued to him, vide Order No. PHQ/DP-01/2007, dated 27.02.2015, whereby he was directed to submit a written reply within 15 days as to why proposed penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him for the gravest misconduct and hi