Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 646 (GAU)

Ramfangzauva v. State of Mizoram & Ors.

2014-06-19

B.K.SHARMA

body2014
B.K. Sharma, J. -- Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Linda, learned State Counsel. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.7.2007, by which, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 14.6.2012, by which, the appeal preferred by him against the order of removal was also dismissed. 3. The petitioner was appointed as constable on compassionate ground vide Annexure-1 order dated 8.2.1996. While he was continuing as such, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 levelling as many as 6 charges, which are reproduced below: ARTICLE-I: That on 31.1.07 C/202 Ramfangzuava was found under the influence of Liquor during Roll Call. The above act and behavior of C/202 Ramfangzuava is a gross misconduct, carelessness and lack of discipline which is highly unbecoming of a Police officer and thereby subjecting himself to be dealt with u/s 7 of Police Act (Act-5 of 1861) r/w rules 1029 of MPM 2005. ARTICLE-II: That C/202 Ramfangzuava was found drunk, sleeping and unable to perform his duty on the night of 13.2.07. On 13.3.07 he was again found drunk while only duty. The above act and behavior of C/202 Ramfangzuava is a gross misconduct, carelessness and negligence of duty which is highly unbecoming of a Police officer and thereby subjecting himself liable to be dealt with u/s 7 of Police Act (Act-V of 1861) r/w rules 1029 of MPM 2005. ARTICLE-III: That on 20.3.07 and 20.4.07 C/202 Ramfangzuava could not perform his assigned duty due to his drunkenness and was replaced by his colleagues on both occasions. The above act and behavior of C/202 Ramfangzuava is a gross misconduct, carelessness and lack of discipline which is highly unbecoming of a Police officer and thereby subjecting himself liable to be dealt with u/s 7 of Police Act (Act-V of 1861) r/w rules 1029 of MPM 2005. ARTICLE-IV: That C/202 Ramfangzuava was found very drunk and unable to control himself. The above act and behavior of C/202 Ramfangzuava is a gross misconduct, carelessness which is highly unbecoming of a Police officer and thereby subjecting himself liable to be dealt with u/s 7 of Police Act (Act-V of 1861) r/w rules 1029 of MPM 2005. ARTICLE-IV: That C/202 Ramfangzuava was found very drunk and unable to control himself. The above act and behavior of C/202 Ramfangzuava is a gross misconduct, carelessness which is highly unbecoming of a Police officer and thereby subjecting himself liable to be dealt with u/s 7 of Police Act (Act-V of 1861) r/w rules 1029 of MPM 2005. ARTICLE-V: That on the morning of 2.6.07 C/202 Ramfangzuava lost 1 (one) spare magazine and ninety rounds of 7.62mmx39mm ammunitions while performing sentry duty from 2am to 4 am. He negligently caused the ammunitions and magazines to be list which were recovered by his colleagues the next day. The above act and behavior of C/202 Ramfangzuava is a gross misconduct, carelessness and lack of discipline which is highly unbecoming of a Police officer and thereby subjecting himself liable to be dealt with u/s 7 of Police Act (Act-V of 1861) r/w rules 1029 of MPM 2005. ARTICLE-VI: That on the night of 14.6.07 some quantity of ganja was recovered from the possession of C/202 Ramfangzuava. The above act and behavior of C/202 Ramfangzuava is a gross misconduct, carelessness and lack of discipline which is highly unbecoming of a Police officer and thereby subjecting himself liable to be dealt with u/s 7 of Police Act (Act-V of 1861) r/w rules 1029 of MPM 2005.” 4. Along with the charges, a statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the articles of charge was also annexed and so also a list of documents and witnesses. The petitioner by his reply in response to the charges admitted the misconduct alleged against him. However, he prayed for mercy and forgiveness. Thereafter vide Annexure-4 communication dated 9.7.2007, the petitioner was issued with the second show cause notice to make representation against the proposed penalty of removal from service. In the communication, admission of the charges by the petitioner was also referred to. In response to the said second show cause notice also, the petitioner by his Annexure-5 representation dated 11.7.2007 while admitting his charges leveled against him prayed for mercy and forgiveness and also to show leniency in the matter. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide its Annexure-6 order dated 30.7.2007 passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the Annexure-7 departmental appeal dated 26.9.2007. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide its Annexure-6 order dated 30.7.2007 passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the Annexure-7 departmental appeal dated 26.9.2007. The appeal having been dismissed by Annexure-10 order dated 14.6.2012, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner admitted the charges leveled against him, but it was incumbent on the part of the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry to find out the veracity or otherwise of the charges leveled against the petitioner. Countering the said argument, learned State Counsel submits that since the petitioner admitted the charges leveled against him, there was no necessity to hold any further enquiry. 6. As has been held by the Apex Court in Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. The State of Mysore reported in AIR 1972 SC 32 admission of fact amounts to admission of guilt alleged in the charges leveled against the delinquent. Admitted fact need not be proved again. In the instant case, the petitioner himself admitted the misconduct attributed to him. Even in response to the second show cause notice also, he admitted the charges leveled against, but only prayed for mercy and forgiveness and to show leniency in the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, a lesser penalty other than removal from service is required to be imposed. Normally exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority towards imposition of penalty pursuant to departmental proceeding. It is only in case of penalty being disproportionate to the gravity of offence, this Court can interfere with the same. The instant case is not one of that nature. The allegations made against the petitioner are all serious in nature and he being a member of disciplined force was required to perform his duties diligently maintaining discipline. If having regard to the charges leveled against the petitioner, which, he himself admitted, the disciplinary authority decided to impose the punishment of removal from service, this Court exercising the power of judicial review cannot interfere with the same. 8. If having regard to the charges leveled against the petitioner, which, he himself admitted, the disciplinary authority decided to impose the punishment of removal from service, this Court exercising the power of judicial review cannot interfere with the same. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed, without, however, any order as to costs