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

2010 Supreme(Gau) 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Shri Bidyut Buragohain - Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 4827 of 2008
Decided On : 08.01.2010

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Member of Assam Police Service - Dereliction of duties and gross misconduct - Charge-sheet - Suspension by order - Petitioner was a member of Assam Police Service (APS 1993 batch) - While he was serving at Lakhimpur as Additional Superintendent of Police, he was placed under suspension by order dated in contemplation of a departmental proceeding - He was so placed under suspension when one, a militant of United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) was found staying in his residential campus and was picked up by Army with arms and ammunitions - Enquiry committee carried out preliminary enquiry regarding nature of involvement of petitioner in entire episode - In mean time, petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated to which petitioner submitted reply dated denying allegations made in show-cause notice - Although in writ petition, petitioner has not annexed the copy of the charge-sheet but said charges are reflected in impugned order dated - Army apprehended one an ULFA militant along with arms and ammunitions from barrack attached to his official residence as he had given shelter to ULFA militant without informing his superior officers –Held, said authority considering entire materials on record including enquiry report and representation submitted by petitioner passed impugned order imposing penalty of compulsory retirement - Impugned order of penalty is a detailed order and cannot be said to be a non-speaking order and/or to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice - Appellate authority in due consideration of entire materials on record has passed impugned order dated - Appellate authority having agreed with findings recorded by disciplinary authority and there being enough indication of consideration of entire materials on record order itself need not contain detail reasons - Thus, Court do not find any infirmity in impugned appellate order - Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, although it was a fit case for imposing penalty of dismissal/removal from service but Disciplinary Authority taking a lenient view in matter has imposed penalty of compulsory retirement in terms of which petitioner may be entitled to certain service benefits which normally he would not have been entitled to had penalty of removal/dismissal been passed against him - Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 16.4.2008 and 28.8.2008 passed respectively by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. By the first order, the petitioner has been awarded with the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service and by the second order, the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The petitioner was a member of the Assam Police Service (APS 1993 batch). While he was serving at Lakhimpur as Additional Superintendent of Police, he was placed under suspension by order dated 10.7.2001 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. He was so placed under suspension when one Shri Gajen Bhuyan, a militant of United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) was found staying in his residential campus and was picked up by the Army with arms and ammunitions. An FIR was lodged with the statement that the said militant alongwith two others had given number of extortion calls/notices to some persons of the area called Boginadi.

3. The aforesaid order of suspension dated 10.7.2001 was followed by the order dated 9.8.2001 by which an enquiry committee was constituted headed by the Commissioner, North Assam Division, Tezpur. The enquiry committee carried out the preliminary enquiry regarding the nature of involvement of the petitioner in the entire episode. In the mean time, the petitioner was served with the show-cause notice dated 8.10.2001 to which the petitioner submitted reply dated 24.10.2001 denying the allegations made in the show-cause notice. Although in the writ petition, the petitioner has not annexed the copy of the charge-sheet but the said charges are reflected in the impugned order dated 16.4.2008. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows:

1. While Sri Bidyut Buragohain, APS was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police(S), Lakhimpur on 5.7.2001, the Army apprehended one Sri Gajen Bhuyan alias Sri Joon Kalita an ULFA militant along with arms and ammunitions from the barrack attached to his official residence as he had given shelter to the ULFA militant without informing his superior officers. Reportedly, the said Gajen Bhuyan had been staying with Sri Bidyut Buragohain for last 7 (seven) months during his tenure at North Lakhimpur and also during his previous tenure at Nalbari. He had failed to produce the militant either before his superior officer in time or to any other authority for appropriate action. His above act amounts to harbouring of criminal and is also detrimental the security of the State.

2. While Sri Gajen Bhuyan (ULFA militant) was staying in the premises of Sri Bidyut Buragohain Govt. quarter at North Lakhimpur, the ULFA militant attempted to extort money from some businessmen of North Lakhimpur by threatening them and the telephone of Sri Bidyut Buragohain, APS, was used but he did not take any action against the militant and thereby he had completely failed to keep any check or watch on the activities of the ULFA militant being an important security officer in the district of Lakhimpur.

3. While Sri Bidyut Buragohain, APS, was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police (HQ), Nalbari, one ULFA militant Sri Gajen Bhuyan alias Joon Kalita, surrendered secretly on 12.12.2000 before him and the O-C, Borbori Police Station in Subonsiri village under Borbori Police Station alongwith arm and ammunitions. Shri Bidyut Burabohain, APS, had taken over custody of the surrendered militant with arms and ammunitions and kept him under his personal custody with a reported intention to secure his surrender formally. But he had never secured his formal surrender and continued to keep him under his personal custody without any clear information to the Superintendent of Police, Nalbari. He didn't keep Sri Gajen Bhuyan (ULFA) along with other surrendered militants in the barrack designated for them by Nalbari Police Station. Sri Bidyut Buragohain, APS, was therefore charged with dereliction of duties and gross mi































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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