TMI Blog1970 (3) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Officer incharge of the Sorbhog Police Station, certain allegations appear to have been made against him in consequence of which a confidential enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Anti- Corruption Branch, who submitted a report to the Government on December 21, 1957. In view of the complaints received against him, the respondent had already been placed under suspension with effect from July 24, 1957. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Barpeta, having been authorised under s. 7 of the Police Act, 1861 framed charges against the respondent on March 22, 1958. It is not really necessary to enumerate the various items of charges, but they can be grouped under three broad heads. Under charge no. 1, the respondent was alleged not to have taken cognisance of the items of cognizable offences reported to him and enumerated under that charge and, as such, he had neglected to perform his duty as a police-officer in charge of a Police Station. The second charge related to his having accumulated assets in his name as well as in .the name of his wife, far beyond his known sources of income. Items of assets purchased by the respondent were again given in detail. The third ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntendent of Police after a perusal and consideration of the same. On receipt of the explanation, the Superintendent of Police, by his order dated December 3, 1958 rejected the explanation of the respondent, accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and holding that the charges had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, dismissed the respondent from service with immediate effect. In the said order, the Superintendent of Police had referred to the charges framed against the respondent, the explanation furnished by him as well as the evidence recorded during the enquiry and the findings recorded by the Officer and the explanation sent by the respondent to the show cause notice and ultimately held that the charges had all been proved established and that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were correct. With regard to the request made by the respondent in his explanation dated November 21, 1958 the disciplinary authority stated that the respondent was afforded a full and fair opportunity to adduce all evidence that he desired to be placed before the Enquiry Officer and that opportunity had also been fully utilised by the respondent. Therefore there was no further necessit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissal by a subordinate authority, viz., the Superintendent of Police, was illegal and void. The allegations made by the respondent in the writ petition were controverted by the appellants. They averred that the respondent was not entitled to a copy of the report of the Anti Corruption Branch, which was only in the nature of a preliminary investigation into the complaints received against the respondent to enable the disciplinary authority to consider whether disciplinary action against the respondent should be initiated or not. It was further stated that the respondent was given a full and fair opportunity to participate in the enquiry and the witnesses were all examined in his presence and, apart from cross- examining the prosecution witnesses, he had also adduced defence evidence on his behalf. The State further averred that the mere circumstance that the Enquiry Officer consulted the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, did not vitiate the enquiry proceedings as no information or material gathered therein had been used by the Enquiry Officer when he recorded findings against the respondent. According to the State, the findings had been recorded on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court did not accept the same as it was satisfied that the witnesses were all examined in the enquiry in the presence of the respondent and that he had a full and fair opportunity of cross- examining the prosecution witnesses and also of examining witnesses on his behalf. Though the request of the respondent, made on October 29, 1958 for being furnished with copies of the evidence recorded during the enquiry was rejected, the High Court was of the view that as the respondent was fully aware of the nature of the evidence adduced in his presence during the enquiry, his grievance that he had no reasonable opportunity to show cause to the notice issued by the Superintendent of Police was unfounded. So far as the second ground of objection was concerned, the High Court was impressed by the fact that the Enquiry proceedings showed that on July 14, 1958 and July 15, 1958 the Enquiry Officer consulted the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Anti Corruption Branch about the proceedings and went through his records relating to those charges. Based upon those entries found in the record of the enquiry proceedings, the High Court came to the conclusion that it was abundantly clear th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1958. It was during this period when the. enquiry was actually going on that the Enquiry Officer, on July 14 and 15, 1958 consulted the Anti Corruption Branch about the matters connected with the enquiry proceedings and had gone through the records available with that Branch relating to the charges levelled against the respondent and which were being tried by the Enquiry Officer. Counsel further urged that the respondent was not furnished with a copy of the report of the Anti Corruption Branch nor was he furnished with the information and materials that must have been gathered by the Enquiry Officer in his consultation with the Anti Corruption Branch and from their records which he inspected on July 14 and 15, 1958. All these circumstances would clearly show that there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry. When once the enquiry proceedings were so vitiated,, the order of dismissal based upon the findings recorded at such an enquiry, has been rightly held by the High Court to be illegal and void. We are of opinion that in the particular circumstances of this case, which will be indicated presently, the High Court has not made a pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arted recording statements of witnesses on and from July 23, 1958 and after recording the statements of thirteen witnesses, came to Gauhati on July 14, 1958 and had consultation with the Deputy Superintendent, Anti Corruption Branch, about the proceedings against the respondent and also went through the record of the Anti Corruption Branch on July 15, 1958. The request of the respondent for being furnished with a copy of the report of the Anti Corruption Branch was not complied with. He further alleged that the enquiry proceedings show that the enquiry officer had taken into consideration, against the respondent, the report of the Anti Corruption Branch. In the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, filed in the writ petition, it was contended in para 10 that the report of the Anti Corruption Branch being a confidential document and not having been used as an Exhibit in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent was not entitled to a copy of the same. It was further averred in para 11 that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, (1) Civil Appeals Nos. 1362-1363/1967 decided on 16-2-1968. Barpeta, recorded against the respondent were based on the evidence recorded during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the back of the delinquent officer has been collected during the enquiry and such material has been relied on by the enquiry officer, without its having been disclosed to the delinquent officer, it can be stated that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated. It was, under such circumstances, that this Court, in Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi(1) accepted the view of the High Court that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by the enquiry officer collecting information from outside sources and utilising the same in his findings recorded against the delinquent officer without disclosing that information to the accused officer. It was again, under similar circumstances that this Court in Sanawarmal Purohit's Case (2 ) upheld the order of the High Court holding the enquiry proceedings to be contrary to the principles of natural justice when the enquiry officer had collected information from third parties and acted upon the information so collected, without disclosing the same to the accused. If the disciplinary authority himself had been also the enquiry officer and, during the course of the enquiry he had collected materials behind th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings were commenced. The validity of the enquiry will have to be decided only by the manner in which it has been conducted. So far as that is concerned, it is clear from the record that the respondent had a full opportunity of participating in the enquiry and adducing evidence on behalf of himself and of cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution and the entire evidence was recorded in his presence. The non-furnishing of the copy of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, does not vitiate the enquiry proceedings. Over and above these circumstances, it is also to be seen that the enquiry officer was not the disciplinary authority competent to impose the punishment against the respondent. The competent authority is the Superintendent of Police. The show cause notice, issued on October 18, 1958 as well as the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police, dated December 3, 1958 clearly show that the said officer has independently gone into the evidence on record in respect of the charges for which the respondent was tried and has, after taking into account the explanations furnished by him, independently come to the conclusion t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned, because it is stated by the High Court that apart from the two points considered by it, no other grounds of objection were raised by the respondent against the order of dismissal. But, if really the records support this contention of Mr. Mukherjee, that will make the order of dismissal illegal and so we permitted the counsel to raise this contention. But, after a reference to the material on record, we are satisfied that this contention is devoid of merit. The respondent, no doubt, averred in his writ petition that he, was appointed to the substanive post of Sub-Inspector of Police by order of the Inspector-General of Police, Assam, and therefore the order of dismissal passed by a subordinate authority, viz., the: Superintendent of Police, is illegal and ultra vires. In the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, the State maintained that the Superintendent of Police was the appointing authority of a Sub-Inspector of Police and it placed reliance upon rule 66, as corrected by the Correction Slip No. 150, dated June 1, 1938 of the Assam Police Manual, Part 111. The State further categorically stated that the Superintendent of Police is the appointing and punishing aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
