Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 763 (ORI)

GAYADHAR MOHANTY v. O. A. T. , CHAIRMAN, BBSR

2009-10-09

B.N.MAHAPATRA, L.MOHAPATRA

body2009
JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This writ application is directed against the order dated 1.3.2000 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 48(C) of 1995. 2. The Petitioner having been dismissed from service in pursuance of a disciplinary proceeding, had approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. challenging the said order of dismissal from service. The O.A. having been dismissed by the Tribunal, this writ application has been filed. 3. The Petitioner was working as a Police Constable attached to Sadar Court of Balasore at the relevant time. A disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him for negligence and dereliction of duty thereby causing escape of an under trial prisoner namely, Ramesh Chandra Behera @ Santosh Das @ Ashok Das @ Rabindra Parida @ Rabindra Behera @ Santosh Parida of Sanbisol Police Station at Kaptipada in the district of Mayurbhanj. An inquiry was conducted by the Reserve Inspector of Police and on conclusion of inquiry, the Petitioner was found guilty of the charge and, accordingly, a report was submitted before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority on consideration of the inquiry report dismissed the Petitioner from service as a measure of punishment. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal before the D.I.G.. When there was delay in disposal of the appeal, the present O.A. was filed. During pendency of the O.A., the appeal before the D.I.G. was disposed of and was rejected. Before the Tribunal, the Petitioner challenged the order of dismissal on the ground of non supply of statement of defence witness R.K. Dutta and also on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before the Tribunal that there is no satisfactory evidence that the U.T.P. had been taken by the Petitioner without consent of C.S.I. or that there has been no observance of P.M.R.295(a). The relevant register like Hazat Register and I.C. warrants were not produced before the Inquiry Officer and in absence of the said documents, the Petitioner could not have been found guilty of the charge of negligence or dereliction of duty. 4. A counter affidavit was filed before the Tribunal by the opposite parties challenging maintainability of the O.A., which had been filed prior to disposal of the appeal preferred before the D.I.G. against the order of dismissal. 4. A counter affidavit was filed before the Tribunal by the opposite parties challenging maintainability of the O.A., which had been filed prior to disposal of the appeal preferred before the D.I.G. against the order of dismissal. It was also contended in the counter affidavit that not only the Petitioner but also another Constable P.C. Naik had taken the U.T.P from Sadar Court Office, Balasore for production before the Magistrate, First Class and the U.T.P. escaped from custody of these two Constables. Proceedings were initiated against both of them but in course of proceeding, the other Constable namely, P.C. Naik died, as a result of which, he was not proceeded any further. The allegation of the Petitioner that he was not supplied with the required documents was stoutly denied. 5. The Tribunal in paragraphs of the order found the O.A. to be maintainable even though the same had been filed during pendency of the appeal before the D.I.G. Police. So far as other ground taken regarding non supply of statement of defence witness or insufficiency of evidence is concerned, on perusal of the record, the Tribunal did not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the inquiry officer and, accordingly, dismissed the O.A. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner assailed the impugned order of the Tribunal on the following two grounds: 1) The evidence adduced in course of the departmental proceeding do not clearly establish that the Petitioner along with the aforesaid Constable P.C. Naik had taken the U.T.P. without consent of C.S.I. for production before the learned Magistrate when the U.T.P. escaped. 2) The punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate considering the gravity of the charge. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that there was no irregularity in course of the departmental proceeding and the Petitioner participated in the proceeding till end. Therefore, it is not open for him now to say that the statement of defence witness was not supplied to him or that some relevant documents were not given to him. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the State that considering the nature of lapses in a department like Police, punishment is appropriate and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 7. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the State that considering the nature of lapses in a department like Police, punishment is appropriate and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 7. So far as first ground taken by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, we find the following charge was framed against him in the departmental proceeding: While attached to Sadar court, Balasore on 7.5.91 at about 10.30 A.M. he along with C/978 Prafull Chandra Nayak took U.T.P. Ramesh Chandra Behera @ Santosh Das @ Ashok Das @Rabindra Parida @Rabindra Behera @ Santosh Parida of Sanbisol, P.S. Kaptipada, Dist Mayurbhanj from the Sadar court office, Balasore without the knowledge of the C.S.I. Sadar court, Balasore with a handcuff on the plea of producing him in the court of Sri Subash Chandra Rath, J.M.F.C., Balasore in Balasore Town P.S. Case No. 96 dt.7.5.1991 u/s 224 IPC (G.R. Case No. 411/91) without any intermediate custody warrant. At 10.40 A.M. on the same date the said U.T.P. was allowed to escape from the court office verandah leaving behind the hand cuff of the western side of the court of S.D.J.M., Balasore which was subsequently found by Sri Manoranjan Acharya, Peon of the court of S.D.J.M., Balasore who produced the same handcuff to the C.S.I. Sadar court, Balasore. 8. The Petitioner denied the charge and contested the proceeding. In course of the said proceeding, witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and it is found from the statement of the C.S.I. that on 7.5.1991 the Petitioner was on hazat duty whereas Constable P.C. Naik was detailed for escort duty along with one R.C. Jena. Exhibit 2 is the document acknowledging such duty. The U.T.P. was brought from the jail for his production in different courts and was kept inside the hazat. The C.S.I. in his evidence has stated that without his permission, during his temporary absence, he was reported by R.C. Jena that the U.T.P was taken to court of Sri Subash Chandra Rath, J.M.F.C, for production by the Petitioner and Shri P.C. Naik. This was as per the sweet will of the said two constables but without knowledge of the C.S.I. The said U.T.P escaped while in custody of these two constables. This was as per the sweet will of the said two constables but without knowledge of the C.S.I. The said U.T.P escaped while in custody of these two constables. The Petitioner and P.C. Naik on being questioned, reported before the C.S.I. that the U.T.P. wanted to urinate and they took to him to the backside building of the court but all of a sudden, the U.T.P. started running towards the Bazar side and in spite of their efforts, he could not be caught. The C.S.I., who has deposed in the above manner, was not practically cross examined. Another witness namely, Promod Kumar Ramsingh has stated that sufficient precaution in putting handcuffs in both the hands of the prisoner had not been taken. The constables also did not raise any hue and cry when the U.T.P. escaped. The other witnesses examined in course of the proceeding also supported the case of the Department. Some of the witnesses were cross examined and in respect of some other witnesses, cross examination was denied. On the basis of such evidence adduced in course of the inquiry, a report was submitted finding the Petitioner guilty of the charge. Considering the nature of evidence adduced before the inquiry officer, we are of the view that the Department has been able to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the charge. The Petitioner also appears to have participated in the proceeding by cross examining some of the witnesses and declining to cross examine some of them. Annexures attached to the writ application do not indicate that at any point of time the Petitioner complained of non supply of statement of defence witness or documents. Therefore, so far as first ground is concerned, we do not find any substance whatsoever. Apart from the above, law is well settled that this Court cannot sit in appeal and find out sufficiency/insufficiency of evidence in support of the charge. Only when it is a case of no evidence, this Court may interfere with the order of punishment. The Petitioner has not been able to bring his case within the purview of such grounds for interference and, therefore the findings of the. inquiry officer on the basis of evidence adduced before him, cannot be said to be without any basis. 9. The Petitioner has not been able to bring his case within the purview of such grounds for interference and, therefore the findings of the. inquiry officer on the basis of evidence adduced before him, cannot be said to be without any basis. 9. So far as second ground is concerned, law is well settled that the High Court cannot substitute a punishment unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. In this case, the charge is that the Petitioner along with the deceased Constable P.C. Naik took the U.T.P. from the hazat without knowledge of the C.S.I. during his temporary absence and the U.T.P. escaped while in custody. Considering the gravity of the charge and the conduct of the Petitioner in this regard, we are of the view that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is not shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. 10. We accordingly having found no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on both the grounds, dismiss the writ application. Final Result : Dismissed