This High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the High Court judge's upholding of a dismissal order against a police constable. The Court found no procedural lapses or violation of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The writ appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010170232024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/376/2024
SIKANDER ALI AHMED
S/O. ABDUL HOQUE, R/O. VILL. KUMULIPARA, P/S. HOWLY, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781316.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, DIST.KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
3:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
4:THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE POLICE COMMISSIONERATE GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
For petitioner(s)/appellant(s) : Mr. B. J. Ghosh, Advocate Mr. A.M.S. Mazumder, Advocate
For respondent(s) :
– BEFORE –
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
08.11.2024
(Vijay Bishnoi,
Page No.# 2/5
affirmation of the dismissal order dated 23.06.2017, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Administration), Assam.
Page No.# 3/5
has recorded a finding that no significant procedural lapses had taken place in the disciplinary proceeding conducted against the appellant and that no case of violation of the principle of natural justice was made out.
“ 21. The charge against the petitioner, who was a Constable with the Unarmed Branch is a definite one. The same pertains to forging and duplicating R.C. Books for collection of traffic fines and there was a marked difference between the fines recorded. The registration of two police case in this regard in which the petitioner was arrested is also not disputed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Proceeding was commenced on non existing charges. The defence sought to be taken is that the petitioner as Constable was not the custodian of government money. What, however, is evident from the reading of the charge is that there was marked difference with the amounts actually collected as traffic fines for which duplicate and forged receipts were issued and the amount reflected in the original R.C. Books. Therefore, whether the petitioner as Constable could have been a custodian of government money or not is of no consequence. This Court is of the firm opinion that the allegations against the petitioner were based on definite facts.
22. It is now required to examine the aspect of the procedure adopted. At this stage, this Court is reminded itself that in exercise of judicial review over a matter concerning disciplinary proceeding, the role of this Court is a limited one. This Court performs a secondary role to oversee as to whether the procedure adopted in the disciplinary proceeding was in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The strict rules of evidence are not applicable in a disciplinary proceeding and what this Court is required to see is whether the proceeding was held in a transparent manner and as to whether the delinquent was given a fair opportunity to defend himself. Of course, this Court would also look into the aspect as to whether the provisions of the statute holding the field were complied with.
23. The thrust of the argument on the procedural aspect made on behalf of the petitioner was that no Presenting Officer was appointed. A bare look at the order dated 24.05.2015 issued by the Disciplinary Authority would reveal that by the said order, both the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed. To rule out any confusion on this issue, this Court has examined the original records of the enquiry proceeding. The same reveals that the Presenting Officer was all along present in the enquiry and his signatures appear on each page of the enquiry proceeding. The aspect of not giving opportunity to the petitioner while recording the evidence has also been examined. The record reveals that the statements of the witnesses were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and he had indeed cross-examined some of the witnesses and declined to cross-examine few other witnesses. Though the record reveals that
Page No.# 4/5
there were no defence assistant, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had made such a request which was declined. The aspect of defence assistant would be relevant only when such request was made and denied and in absence of such request, the petitioner would be precluded from raising the said issue. It has also not been pleaded that the petitioner had suffered any prejudice in that aspect.
24. In the case of Rajen Bhuyan (supra) which has been cited in this regard, it is seen that while the requirement of informing the delinquent officer of his right to have a defence representative is highlighted, it is also qualified that by such commission, the delinquent officer had suffered. In the instant case, no such prejudice has been seen to have been suffered by the delinquent as he had cross examined the witnesses.
25. On the aspect that the petitioner was forced to make a statement against himself, a bare look at the statement made by the petitioner on 21.09.2015 would show that not to talk about any admission, the petitioner had, on the contrary denied all the charges against him. In any case, this Court is of the opinion that mere giving of a statement by a delinquent would not per se vitiate the proceeding and in fact such a disciplinary proceeding envisages adducing of defence witnesses. It is only when a delinquent is forced to make a statement against himself that such a proceeding would stand vitiated. However, that is not the case in hand.
26. As indicated above, the records of the enquiry reveal that all the statements of the witnesses bear the signatures of the delinquent and therefore, it cannot be accepted that such statements were recorded behind the back of the petitioner.
27. The order of Dismissal dated 23.06.2017 has been assailed that the same does not contain adequate reasons. A perusal of the order would however reveal that the Disciplinary Authority had not only examined the enquiry report but also the materials upon which such report was prepared and the response of the petitioner. The order also reveals that the predecessor of the Disciplinary Authority had given a personal hearing on 22.02.2017 and even the present Disciplinary Authority had given a personal hearing to the petitioner on 17.06.2017. The Disciplinary Authority had also considered the aspect of the nature of penalty to be imposed vis-a-vis the seriousness of the charges. It has been observed that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force is not to be dealt with softly as the same will set a bad precedent.
28. This Court has also observed that the Appellate Authority had also examined all the aspects of the matter as reflected by the order dated 11.09.2020. The Appellate Authority had also considered the nature of the allegations and the fact that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding including personal hearing.
29. The allegations regarding violation of Rules 9 (5) & 9 (6) of the Rules of 1964 do not appear to be substantiated by the facts of the case which have been recorded above. The reference to the case of Mutum Shantikumar Singh (supra)
Page No.# 5/5
on the aspect of appointment of Presenting Officer would not come to the aid of the petitioner as a Presenting Officer was indeed appointed, as discussed above.
30. This Court is of the opinion that the role discharged by the Disciplinary Authority was in substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice whereby a fair opportunity was given to the petitioner.
31. On the aspect of proportionality of the penalty imposed, this Court is of the opinion that the quantum involved would not be of much relevance in a case of misappropriation, that too by a member of a disciplined force and this aspect was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the penalty.”
Hence, this writ appeal is dismissed in limine.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any significant procedural lapses occurred in the departmental enquiry leading to the dismissal of a police constable.
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated during the disciplinary proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajen BhuyanReferred¶35
Rajen Bhuyan (supra)
Mutum Shantikumar SinghReferred¶40
Mutum Shantikumar Singh (supra)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sikander Ali Ahmed
State of Assam
Vijay Bishnoi
N. Unni Krishnan Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
