Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 785 (GAU)

TATO LOMBI v. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

2015-06-19

M.R.PATHAK

body2015
ORDER : M.R. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ajin Apang, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kardak Ete, learned additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Ms. Gita Deka learned Additional Senior Government advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner herein is a constable in 2nd Arunachal Pradesh Police Battalion, presently posted at Itanagar Police Station of Papumpare District. While the petitioner was posted at Roing of Lower Dibang Valley District, on 18.11.2003, when he was detailed for rear guard duty of the Under Trial Prisoners ('UTPs') at Judicial Lock-Up at Roing for the period from 2200 hours to 2400 hours, 11 such UTPs managed to escape from custody during said period by cutting iron rods of ventilator of the lock-up. As the petitioner was found absent in his assigned duty during the said hours on the date of the incident, the Commandant of 2nd Arunachal Pradesh Police Battalion, Battalion Head Quarter, Along vide No.P-027/DP/2nd BN/SP(R)RNG/03 dated 24.11.2003 initiated the disciplinary proceeding against him and 9 others of the Battalion under rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 for their misconduct and deliberate negligence in duty, which is unbecoming for a member of discipline force, which make them unfit for their retention in the discipline force. The petitioner and the other delinquents were served with the memorandum of charge, statement of articles with list of documents and witnesses, directing them to submit their written statement within 10 days from the date of receipt of said memorandum in their defence before the enquiring authority. On the same day the said disciplinary authority, the Commandant of 2nd APP Bn. BHQ, Along vide order No. P-027/DE/2nd BN/SP(R)RNG/03 dated 24.11.2003 appointed Inspector M. Gogoi, Circle Inspector of Police, Roing as an enquiring authority to enquire into the charges levelled against the delinquents including the petitioner. 3. The petitioner on 24.11.2003 submitted his written statement with regard to the aforesaid memorandum of charges, denying the allegations stating that he has unblemished past record, does his duty very sincerely and with utmost devotion and integrity and, therefore, the disciplinary proceeding contemplated against him is unwarranted and he is entitled to be exonerated from the charges. 4. 3. The petitioner on 24.11.2003 submitted his written statement with regard to the aforesaid memorandum of charges, denying the allegations stating that he has unblemished past record, does his duty very sincerely and with utmost devotion and integrity and, therefore, the disciplinary proceeding contemplated against him is unwarranted and he is entitled to be exonerated from the charges. 4. During pendency of the said enquiry proceeding, the petitioner was transferred from 2nd Arunachal Pradesh Police Battalion to the 1st Arunachal Pradesh Police Battalion and his statement was recorded by the enquiry officer on 10.1.2006. After recording of evidences of the witnesses, the delinquents, defence witnesses and after hearing the delinquents, the concerned departmental enquiry officer on 30.4.2006 submitted his enquiry report with regard to the charges levelled against the delinquents, with the opinion that though no specific negligence found present against individual, but collective negligence found in the part of all sentries and guard commander of UTP cell, Roing, i.e., the delinquents concerned, including the petitioner. However, the said enquiry officer came to a conclusion that the charges against the delinquents stand a little bit as presence of sewing machine, a stool and transistor helped the UTPs to an opportunity in front of helpless sentries. 5. On receipt of the said enquiry report along with other evidences available on record relied upon in the case, the petitioner submitted his representation on 4.7.2006 before the Deputy Commandant, 1st AAP Bn BHQ, Chimpu, Itanagar stating that on 18.11.2013 as detailed for guard duty at Judicial Lock-Up, Roing during 2200 hrs to 2400 hrs, he reported in duty and while on duty, his daughter over telephone informed him that his niece is seriously ill and taken to Community Health Centre at Roing. As such, to attend his sick niece, he handed over his guard duty to his colleague Constable Limin Pertin (one of the delinquent) in presence of Constable L. Jangsam (another delinquent). Though at that point of time, he tried to report to the Guard Commander of the UTP Cell, but both the Guard Commanders were not available in the UTP Cells and because of emergency he had to leave without informing them. The petitioner in this regard submitted medical report/relevant documents before the enquiry officer in the enquiry proceeding. Though at that point of time, he tried to report to the Guard Commander of the UTP Cell, but both the Guard Commanders were not available in the UTP Cells and because of emergency he had to leave without informing them. The petitioner in this regard submitted medical report/relevant documents before the enquiry officer in the enquiry proceeding. The petitioner also submitted that handing over guard duty to another Constable during an emergent situation is a natural phenomenon to help each other. As such, he submitted that his absence in the guard duty in the Judicial Lock-Up, Roing on 18.11.2003 during the time of the incident was not deliberate and, therefore, requested the authority to set aside article of charges against him. 6. The disciplinary authority, namely, the Commandant, 2nd APP Bn BHQ. Along after thorough examination of the enquiry report and other relevant documents of the case agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the charges brought against the delinquents stand proved. The disciplinary authority found that by absenting themselves from their detailed duties in the sensitive duty post of guarding the UTPs in the Judicial Lock-Up, Roing at the relevant time of the incident amounts to gross misconduct and deliberate negligence of duty on the part of the delinquents, which, deserves for major punishment. Accordingly, the said disciplinary authority, excepting the petitioner, who was transferred to 1st APP Bn BHQ, Chimpu, Itanagar and another delinquent, namely, Constable W. Lowng, who expired on 15.9.2005; by order No. P-027/DE/2ND BN/SP(R)RNG/03 dated 13.9.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of aforesaid 1999 Rules, imposed the major penalty of forfeiture of 5 years' service increment with cumulative effect permanently on the other eight delinquents. With regard to the delinquent Constable W. Lowng, who expired on 15.9.2005 during the enquiry proceeding, the disciplinary authority dropped the charges against him and also exonerated him from the charges. Since the petitioner is serving under the Commandant of 1st APP Bn, Chimpu; the said disciplinary authority forwarded the concerned departmental enquiry file to the Commandant of 1st APP Bn, Chimpu to finalise the departmental enquiry against him. 7. Since the petitioner is serving under the Commandant of 1st APP Bn, Chimpu; the said disciplinary authority forwarded the concerned departmental enquiry file to the Commandant of 1st APP Bn, Chimpu to finalise the departmental enquiry against him. 7. The Commandant of 1st APP Bn BHQ, Chimpu on examination of the records of the departmental enquiry and on his careful examination of the representation of the petitioner, found it unsatisfactory and also found that on 18.11.2003 petitioner's duty was from 2200 hrs. to 2400 hrs. and the petitioner could not resume the said duty, which have been corroborated by other witnesses and delinquents on their statements during the course of enquiry, that because of his absence at rear guard duty, the UTPs could escape from the lock-up, as a sentry of judicial lock-up his responsibility was more and absenting from his duty of such a serious nature at the relevant time is a gross misconduct and negligence on the part of the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force. For the aforesaid reasons, the Commandant of 1st APP Bn BHQ, Chimpu came to the finding that the petitioner deserves major penalty and accordingly, he being the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of said 1999 Rules, vide order No. P-027/DE/2nd BN/SP(R)/RNG/03 dated 11.10.2006, imposed the major penalty of forfeiture of 5 years' service increment with cumulative effect permanently upon the petitioner with immediate effect. 8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner on 6.1.2010 preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, Itanagar for review of the said penalty dated 11.10.2006 imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority. On due consideration, the concerned appellate authority, i.e., the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Battalion), Arunachal Pradesh, on 14.7.2010 rejected petitioner's said appeal with a speaking order. Thereafter, the petitioner on 23.7.2010 preferred a revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, Itanagar for reconsideration of the matter and to review the punishment imposed upon him. However, the said revisional authority by order dated 8.9.2010 rejected the revision petition of the petitioner. 9. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition for setting aside, to revoke and quash the said impugned order of penalty dated 11th October 2006. 10. However, the said revisional authority by order dated 8.9.2010 rejected the revision petition of the petitioner. 9. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition for setting aside, to revoke and quash the said impugned order of penalty dated 11th October 2006. 10. The main contention of the petitioner herein is that on the date of the incident, i.e., on 18.11.2013 he reported for his detailed rear guard duty of the Judicial Lock-Up, Roing for 2000 hrs. to 2400 hrs., but on receipt of an emergency call from his daughter around 2030 hrs. about the sudden and serious illness of his niece, he had to leave for Community Health Centre, Roing. As such, he handed over his guard duty to his colleague Constable Limin Pertin in presence of Constable L. Jangsam and though he tried to inform the concerned Guard Commanders, but due to their non-availability in the Guard Room he could not inform them and had to leave for CHC, Roing without informing them to attend his niece. The petitioner also submitted that during the enquiry proceeding he furnished relevant medical reports and documents to that extent, which were not considered in proper manner. The petitioner also submitted that because of sudden illness of his niece, he had to leave his detailed duty after handing over charges to his colleague and all along in his service career he served without any blemishes from his superior authority and served the Department with sincerity, dedication and satisfaction to his controlling official. The petitioner urged that the action of the respondents in imposing impugned penalty is arbitrary, illegal and disproportionate to the finding of the enquiry officer. 11. Mr. Ete, learned additional advocate general has produced the records of the concerned departmental enquiry in original. He submitted that penalty imposed upon the petitioner is just and proper as the disciplinary authority rightly found the petitioner's absence from duty at the relevant time was without any authority, which is a gross misconduct and serious negligence on his part with regard to his rear guard duty of the UTPs at the judicial lock-up at Roing being a personnel from the disciplined force of the State. Mr. Ete further submitted that the points raised by the petitioner in the petition were not raised earlier by him before the appellate authority or the revisional authority before the impugned punishment was upheld by those authorities. 12. Mr. Ete further submitted that the points raised by the petitioner in the petition were not raised earlier by him before the appellate authority or the revisional authority before the impugned punishment was upheld by those authorities. 12. On perusal of the records it is seen that in his written statement/reply submitted to the memorandum of charge dated 24.11.2003, (annexed to the petition as Annexure III), the petitioner submitted that on the night of the incident on 18.11.2003 at 2000 hrs. to 2400 hrs., 'he was all along in duty except for short time to have his supper'. In the said reply, the petitioner also stated that 'at 10:15 pm he received an emergency call from his daughter about serious illness of his niece and he immediately left for CHC, Roing informing his partner Constable Limin Pertin and as such there was no negligence of duty or misconduct on his part as alleged in the memorandum of charges and he is not liable to any disciplinary proceeding and any punishment as contemplated. 13. Rule 3 of the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (before amendment of 2005) provides for Classification of Punishment and sub-rule (2) of said rule 3 provides for Major Punishments. Rule 3(2)(d) of the said 1999 Rules provides for Major Punishment "Forfeiture of Increments" and it reads as - "(i) the increment of a police officer may be withheld as a punishment. The order must state definitely the period for which the increment is withheld and whether the withholding shall have the effect of postponing future increments, (ii) the withholding of increments shall be entered in the order book in the case of all Police personnel of subordinate rank. 14. The Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was amended by the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline and Appeal) (Amendment) Rules, 2005. Rule 3(2) 'Major Punishment' of 1999 Rules was amended and a new major punishment "compulsory retirement" was substituted under clause (c); the major punishment "Forfeiture of Increments" mentioned in clause (d) of the 1999 Rules has been replaced with "Reduction to a Lower Stage in the same time scale of pay" under clause (e) and a new major punishment "withholding of increment with Cumulative Effect" has been substituted under clause (g). After the 2005 amendment of said 1999 Rules, the existing definition of "Forfeiture of Increments" under clause (d) of rule 3(2) of 1999 Rules have become the definition of new major punishment "withholding of Increment with Cumulative Effect" under rule 3(2)(g) of 1999 Rules. Said 1999 Rules do not provide for any appointment of presenting officer along with the Enquiry Officer. 15. Rule 7 of the said 1999 Rules provides for detailed provisions with regard to the 'Procedure for imposing major punishments'. Sub-rule (6) of said rule 7 of 1999 Rules provides that "a member of the subordinate rank may take the assistance of any other member of the Police Department posted in the same district to present the case on his behalf before the enquiring authority, but may not engage a legal practitioner'. Further, rule 13 of said 1999 Rules provides for "Action on the inquiry report". Sub-rule (5) of said rule 13 of 1999 Rules provides that "if the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on.all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry, is of the opinion that any of the major punishments under sub-rule (2) of rule 3 shall be imposed on the charge official, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the charges official any opportunity of making representation on the punishment proposed to be imposed except in case the punishment proposed is that of dismissal or removal from the service". 16. From the records of the case it is seen that the enquiry officer on 1.9.2004 informed the delinquents to give the names of their defence witnesses and documents/records of defence and to produce the defence witness on the date of hearing the statement. Again on 16.12.2005 the delinquents were informed to be present for hearing with their defence witnesses if any on 22nd and 23rd of December at Roing at 10 a.m. As the petitioner could not attend the hearing on those two dates, he and another delinquent Constable L. Jangsam were heard on 11.1.2006 at Khonsa. But, petitioner did not produce any defence witness at the time of recording his statement of defence. 17. But, petitioner did not produce any defence witness at the time of recording his statement of defence. 17. From the records it is also seen that the delinquent Constable Limin Pertin, to whom the petitioner alleged to had handed over his charge on the night of the incident after receipt of the emergency phone call, in his statement before the enquiry officer and in his reply dated 3.1.2004 to the memorandum of charge dated 24.11.2003 submitted that at 2200 hrs. he took over charge from his previous/earlier sentry for the front guard duty in absence of his guard partner Constable T. Lombi, (the petitioner), who was detailed for rear guard duty of the UTP Cell, Roing and in absence of his rear guard duty partner, he was performing his guard duty alone and it was not possible for him to guard both the rear and the front side of the concerned lock-up stop. In his statement there was no mention about handing over charge by the petitioner to him during the night of the incident. Similarly, another delinquent Constable L. Jangsam, in presence of whom the petitioner alleged to have handed over his charge on the night of the incident to Constable Limin Pertin, in his statement before the enquiry officer and reply dated 3.1.2004 to the memorandum of charge dated 24.11.2003 stated that he was on front guard duty of the UTP Cell, Roing on the date of incident during 2000 hrs. to 2200 hrs. and after expiration of his said duty time, he handed over/relieved charge to the next person Constable Limin Pertin at 2200 hrs. and then went to take his meal. He also stated that just after releving charge to Constable Limin Pertin, petitioner came in a motorcycle whose duty was from 2200 hrs. to 2400 hrs. on a rear guard. However, said Constable L. Jangsam in his statements did not state that in his presence, the petitioner handed over charge to Constable Limin Pertin during the night of the incident. 18. Though these evidences were brought to the notice of the petitioner with the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, he did not make any specific reply in his statement before the enquiry officer as well as in his representation dated 4.7.2006. 19. 18. Though these evidences were brought to the notice of the petitioner with the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, he did not make any specific reply in his statement before the enquiry officer as well as in his representation dated 4.7.2006. 19. Record of the case did not reveal that the petitioner sought for any such assistance nor he produced any defence witness and documents except a xerox copy of a prescription dated 17.11.2003 (a day prior to the date of the incident) issued in the name of one Ms. Yatu Lombi, 26 yrs, alleged to be petitioner's niece, issued by a doctor of CHC, Roing. 20. The enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and finally the revisional authority on their due consideration found that Constable L. Pertin who was detailed as front guard of the UTP Cell, Roing for the 2200 hrs. to 2400 hrs. on the date of the incident on 18.11.2003 during enquiry did not state that the petitioner informed him with regard to his departure leave to the Community Health Centre, Roing to attend his ailing niece and that in the enquiry it has been adequately stated that the UTPs escaped by cutting the iron rods of the ventilator of the lock-up due to absence of the rear sentry at the time of the incident, i.e., the petitioner. The said authorities also found that the petitioner failed to adduce any new and corroborating evidence during the enquiry and in his personal hearing and, therefore, the authorities concerned rejected the contention of the petitioner as not tenable. 21. Mr. The said authorities also found that the petitioner failed to adduce any new and corroborating evidence during the enquiry and in his personal hearing and, therefore, the authorities concerned rejected the contention of the petitioner as not tenable. 21. Mr. Apang learned counsel for the petitioner supporting his case, cited the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this court reported in Lav Nigam v. Chairman and M.D., ITI Ltd., (2006) 9 SCC 440 , Nagaland Armed Police Wireless Staff Association v. State of Nagaland, (2000) 1 GLT 548, Adhir Chandra Das v. State of Tripura, (2004) Supp GLT 225, Mutum Shantikumar Singh v. Union of India, (2005) 1 GLT 413, Adhir Chandra Das v. State of Tripura (2005) 3 GLT 58 and 154, Amal Kumar Baruah v. State of Assam, (2006) 2 GLT 569; (2006) 3 GLR 106 and (2006) 3 GLT 146, Neekan N. Manak v. State of Meghalaya, (2006) Supp GLT 316 and 472, Budhin Chandra Das v. Union of India, (2010) 2 GLT 798, Bidyut Buragohain v. State of Assam, (2013) 1 GLT 943; (2013) 3 GLR 98 and Nobin Mohan v. State of Assam, (2014) 1 GLT 515. On the other hand Mr. Ete, learned Addl. Advocate General has placed his reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in Crescent Dyes and Chemicals v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2 SCC 115 , Government of India v. George Philp, (2006) 13 SCC 1, Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 11 SCC 500 and Sanjay Kumar Singh v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 692 . 22. Considered the judgments cited by the learned counsels for the parties. 23. It is an admitted position that a departmental enquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the principles of natural justice including a fair procedure of enquiry is inbuilt in such a proceeding and as such it is the duty of the enquiry officer to discharge his function in a quasi-judicial manner where he is a required to act fairly and impartially so that no prejudice is caused to the charged official during the enquiry. Though there is no specific provision for appointment of any 'presenting officer' in a departmental enquiry under the said 1999 Rules, but sub-rule (12) of aforementioned rule 7 of 1999 Rules clearly provides that 'on that date fixed for that inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charges are proposed to be proved, shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the charged official. The inquiry authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit". Moreover, sub-rule (13) of said rule 7 of 1999 Rules provides that - "the inquiry authority is empowered, however, to bring on record that earlier statement of any witness whose presence cannot, in the opinion of such officer, be procured without undue delay, inconveniences or expense if he considers such statement necessary provided that it has been recorded and attested by a police officer superior in rank to the charged official, or by a Magistrate and is either signed by the person making it or has been recorded by such officer during an investigation or judicial enquiry or trial. The statements and comments so brought on record in the departmental proceeding shall also be read out to the charged official and he shall be given an opportunity to take notes. Unsigned statements shall be brought on record only through recording the statement of the officer or Magistrate who had recorded the statement of the witness concerned. The charged official shall be bound to answer any question which the inquiry authority made deem fit to put to him with a view to elucidating the facts referred to in the statements of documents, thus, brought on record". 24. From these provisions it is clear that on the date of the inquiry before the concerned inquiry authority, the disciplinary authority or someone on behalf of the disciplinary authority is required to place oral and documentary evidence by which it wants to prove the articles of charges against the charged/delinquent official. Further, the inquiry authority during the enquiry is also required to place the statements and documents so brought on record in the departmental proceeding before the charged official, giving him an opportunity to take notes. 25. Further, the inquiry authority during the enquiry is also required to place the statements and documents so brought on record in the departmental proceeding before the charged official, giving him an opportunity to take notes. 25. Records of the enquiry proceeding reveals that the Enquiry Officer on the date of recording of statement of the petitioner placed before him the statement of witnesses already recorded including prosecution witness and the statement of delinquent Constable Limin Pertin, which are detrimental to him, read out the same and also explained the same to him in the language he can understand giving him an opportunity to verify and comment on it. The Enquiry Officer also put some questions to him to bring out the facts referred to in the statement of documents, which were also duly recorded. 26. It is a settled law that in exercising the power of judicial review, the writ court is not authorised to examine the enquiry report and also correctness of the decision taken by the disciplinary authority with regard to accepting or rejecting the enquiry report, which is within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner neither during the enquiry proceeding before the enquiry authority requested him for appointment of Presenting Officer nor before the appellate or revisional authority pleaded that failure on the part of disciplinary/enquiry authority to appoint Presenting Officer has caused prejudice to him. Further, there is nothing in the record, to show that failure to appoint a Presenting Officer caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Record of the case also clearly shows that the Enquiry Officer informed all the delinquents, including the petitioner gave opportunity to engage their defence witness by, forwarding their name, which the petitioner did not avail. Moreover, the petitioner did not plea before the appellate and/or revisional authority that he was denied the opportunity of cross-examining any witness of the proceeding. In the present case there is no material to show that there is any violation of mandatory provisions of law causing any miscarriages of justice for which the petitioner had to suffer. 27. Moreover, the petitioner did not plea before the appellate and/or revisional authority that he was denied the opportunity of cross-examining any witness of the proceeding. In the present case there is no material to show that there is any violation of mandatory provisions of law causing any miscarriages of justice for which the petitioner had to suffer. 27. In the case of State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that - "An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically. The court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature or (b) whether it is procedural in character. In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this : procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under 'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In this connection, it may be remembered that there may be certain procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character, whose violation is by itself proof of prejudice. The court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases." 28. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In this connection, it may be remembered that there may be certain procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character, whose violation is by itself proof of prejudice. The court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases." 28. It is a settled law that the High Court in exercising writ jurisdiction is not hearing an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the delinquent employee and the jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising the judicial review extends to the cases where there has been a substantial non-compliance with the rules, procedure or gross violation of rules, natural justice, which resulted in miscarriages of justice or that punishment is shockingly disproportionate Government of India and Another v. George Philip, (2006) 13 SCC 1, 29. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to a disciplined force of the State. As the petitioner could not establish by convincing evidence that he had to leave his rear guard duty of the UTPs cell at night on the date of the incident because of an emergency call without informing the guard commander and handing over his charge to his colleague in the front guard duty of said UTPs cell, namely, Constable Limin Pertin, and that because of his absence from duty assigned to him the UTPs could escape at night by the rear side of the cell, the disciplinary authority, the appellate and the revisional authority considered the action on the part of the petitioner as misconduct and gross indiscipline in service for which he was imposed with the impugned penalty. Considering the gravity of the charge, brought and proved against the petitioner, a member of the State police, the court is of the considered view that impugned punishment imposed upon petitioner does not appear to be shockingly disproportionate. 30. For the reasons and discussions made herein above, the court found the present petition lacks merit and.