Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, ensuring adequate opportunity for defense, including cross-examination of witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.H Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattarcharjee, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 16.08.2016 by which the appeal of the petitioner filed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Assam, Silchar had been rejected by upholding the order dated 17.04.2014 discharging the petitioner from his service. The order dated 17.04.2014 is also the subject matter of this writ petition.

3. The facts in brief leading to the passing of the impugned order dated 17.04.2014 can be traced back to a show cause notice issued upon the petitioner on 10.02.1996 in D.P Case No. 2/1996 by the Superintendent of Police Karimganj leveling 5 charges against the petitioner. On the basis of the 5 charges, the petitioner was required to submit his statement in defense within 10 days from the date of receipt of the communication provided to him. The statement of allegation was also apprehended to the said show cause notice. A list of 10 witnesses and the documents and articles to be exhibited were also given to the petitioner. The petitioner gave his reply on 20.06.1996 and thereafter by an order dated 29.11.1997, the Superintendent of Police Karimganj discharged the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Pertinent to note here as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had joined in service on 19.09.1990 as UB Constable in Assam Police.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.1997, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing the W.P(C) No. 6289/2006 whereby an order dated 12.12.2013, the impugned discharge order was quashed, the petitioner was permitted to prefer a representation against the inquiry proceeding and if such representation is filed the disciplinary authority would consider the same on merit by taking note of the petitioner’s grievances. It was observed in the order passed by this Court that the petitioner would not be reinstated in service automatically since the interference with the discharge order was being made by the Court only on consideration of breach of the principle of natural justice. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Karimganj. The Superintendent of Police, Karimganj by a communication dated 15.03.2014 served the second show cause notice, thereby supplying a copy of the inquiry report and a certified copy of the departmental proceeding and the inquiry report to the petitioner requiring him to file a reply to the second show cause notice within 10 days from the date of receipt of the same. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show cause notice by which he had prayed for a reinstatement. The petitioner had submitted that he was not allowed to cross-examine any of the witnesses during the inquiry proceeding and that the Inquiry Officer had acted perfunctorily. After a consideration of the reply filed, by an order dated 17.04.2014, which is a subject matter in this writ petition, the petitioner was discharged from his services again for his criminal activities. However, no orders were passed with regard to the interim period which had passed between the date of the original order, the date of the High Court for quashing the earlier proceeding and the date of passing the order passed against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3680/2014 which came to be disposed on 22.04.2015 requiring the petitioner to file an appeal against the discharge order as provid