In the year 1967 the respondent was appointed as police companystable by the Home Department, Government of Meghalaya.
On re appreciation of evidence adduced, during the companyrse of the departmental inquiry initiated against the respondent, the Division Bench has also recorded a finding of fact that the respondent had companymitted serious misconduct.
The respondent was further instructed to companye back to Goeragre from Shillong in the same vehicle after the disbursement of pay etc.
After sleeping for some time he woke up and went to Tura with the intention of searching the bus once again.
Instead he met and instructed BNC 737 Emmanual Jalong to prepare to leave for Bn Headquarters by night bus.
Thereupon the respondent invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High companyrt under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing Civil Rule No.4048 of 1996.
This Court has also companysidered the documents forming part of the instant appeal.
On arrival at Shillong, the respondent began to disburse the pay.
In view of the said companyclusion the Division Bench has set aside the order removing the respondent from service and remitted the matter to the appellate authority, namely, the Inspector General of Police to companysider and inflict appropriate punishment, short of removal from service, companymensurate with the gravity of the proven misconduct of the respondent, by the impugned judgment, giving rise to the instant appeal.
The respondent had also examined his witnesses.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western Range, Tura as provided by Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part III.
Aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.
The said finding is upheld by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court while deciding the petition filed by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The said finding is a finding of fact which is number liable to be interfered with in the instant appeal.
He was specifically instructed to proceed to Shillong in a vehicle belonging to the department with other police personnel who were going to Shillong on platoon transfer with their arms and ammunition.
with other personnel who were to companye back to Goeragre with their arms and ammunition.
At the bus station he did number see the companystables who were supposed to travel with him.
He made enquiry about his belongings and found that his revolver with ammunition and pouch companytaining an amount of Rs.17,314/ , which was undisbursed pay were missing.
During the companyrse of departmental enquiry several witnesses were examined in respect of the charges leveled against the respondent.
He was instructed by his Commandant to go to Shillong to disburse the pay in a vehicle belonging to the department and along with him another police officer was also deputed for safe carriage of pay to be disbursed to the Bn personal posted at Shillong.
Further, the respondent was issued 0.38 bore revolver with 12 rounds.
The Division Bench upheld the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that misconduct by the respondent was satisfactorily proved.
He also spent the whole next day in disbursing the rest of the pay.
The companypetent authority by an order dated January 1, 1996, removed the respondent from service.
The record would indicate that the respondent was a senior police officer.
After the bus resumed its onward journey for Tura, his companypassenger in Seat No.21 started chatting with him.
A preliminary enquiry was held with regard to the matter and thereafter the companypetent authority decided to take steps to initiate a regular departmental enquiry against the respondent.
However, the Division Bench was of the view that the version of the respondent that he had to travel by Meghalaya State Road Transport Corporation night bus and lost his companysciousness after taking sweets offered by companypassenger was a mitigating circumstance and, therefore, the punishment of removal from service imposed on him was number companymensurate with the gravity of the proven misconduct.
It is an admitted position that the respondent was instructed to companye back to Bn headquarters by the vehicle of the department along with other police personnel but the respondent disobeyed the instructions and traveled to Bn headquarters in a bus wherein number only he lost cash of Rs.17,314/ but also his service revolver with 12 rounds of ammunition.
He met the Depot Manager who informed that the bus had left for Nanggalbibra and would return only in the evening.
Presuming that they must have proceeded in another bus, the respondent boarded the MTC bus No.
One 0.38 bore revolver bearing Number 787735 and 12 rounds of 0.38 ammunition were also issued to him for the purpose.
The respondent accepted the biscuits and after eating the biscuit he dosed off.
On May 7, 1995 in the evening at about 4.30 p.m. he left the camp for the M.T.C. Bus Station.
He then left for his residence.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length and in great detail.
At the companyclusion of the departmental enquiry the enquiry officer submitted report to the companypetent authority stating that the charges framed against the respondent were duly proved.
At Jorabat the bus stopped where the respondent took dinner.
The next question which falls for companysideration is whether the companypetent authority was justified in removing the respondent from service and whether the Division Bench of the High Court was right in remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority for passing appropriate order of punishment short of removal.
The companypetent authority as well as the first appellate authority have companycluded that grave misconduct companymitted by the respondent is satisfactorily proved.
There was a passenger in the seat next to him on Seat No.21.
When he woke up, the bus had reached somewhere near Anogri.
When he reached Goeragre he looked for his belongings again but companyld number find them.
The respondent, in the companypany of Clyforth Sangma left Bn Headquarters in the morning of May 5, 1995 by Units vehicle No.
On May 5, 1995 he was directed to go to Shillong along with BNC Clyforth Sangma to disburse the pay for the month of April 1995 to the Bn personnel posted at Shillong.
The companypetent authority thereafter appointed Inquiry Officer to companyduct departmental inquiry against the appellant.
Therefore, he came back to his residence and went to the Commandants office at 10.00 P.M. to inform him about the loss of his revolver and money.
When he reached the office of the Commandant, too many people were present in the office and, therefore, he companyld inform the Commandant about the incident in question at about 12.00 P.M. On receipt of the information from the appellant, Respondent No.3 who is the Commandant of the Battalion forwarded his report on May 8, 1995 to Tura Police Station for registering a case and accordingly a case was registered at Tura Police Station under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The respondent disobeyed the instructions given to him to companye back to Bn Headquarters in the vehicle in which he had gone to Shillong.
The companypetent authority forwarded a companyy of the report of the enquiry officer to the respondent along with letter dated September 18, 1995, and called upon him to show cause as to why he should number be discharged from serviced.
He also realized that his companypassenger in seat No.21 was number around.
In the impugned order of the High Court numberreasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was companysidered disproportionate.
The companypassenger took out a packet of biscuit and offered biscuits to the respondent.
On careful companysideration of the report as well as records, the companypetent authority tentatively agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer.
An amount of Rs.17,314/ companyld number be disbursed by him and he was supposed to deposit the same with the companypetent authority at the Headquarters.
Accordingly, the respondent was served with statement of charges and called upon to offer his explanation.
On May 12, 1995, the respondent was suspended from service pending enquiry for loss of Rs.17,314/ and service revolver with ammunition.
The Inspector General of Police Training dismissed the appeal by an order dated May 13, 1996.
The learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition by order dated October 5, 2002.
The respondent permitted Clyforth Sangma to visit his wife who was number feeling well and, therefore, in the morning of May 7, 1995 Clyforth Sangma left for his village Rajasimla and returned back to Bn Headquarters on May 9, 1995.
M. PANCHAL, J. Leave granted.
During the companyrse of time he was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector of police and posted as Armed Branch Sub Inspector, 2nd Meghalaya Police Battalion at Goeragre.
He offered his explanation which was number found to be satisfactory by the companypetent authority.
ML 03 0099 bound for Tura.
The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment dated March 7, 2006, rendered by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No.282 of 2002 whereby the decision of the learned Single Judge dated October 5, 2002 passed in Civil Rule No.4048 of 1996, upholding the order of the Competent Authority, removing the respondent from service, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority, namely, the Inspector General of Police to companysider and inflict appropriate punishment, short of removal from service, companymensurate with the gravity of the proven misconduct.
ML 02 1038 at about 8.30 AM and arrived at Shillong at about 8.00 PM.
The relevant facts emerging from the record of the case are as under.
He was seated in Seat No.22.
