Tito Menezes, J.:— Polite Sub-Inspector Ashok Naik and Head Constable Antonio ??? were charged for misconduct. Disciplinary proceedings followed and the two police officers were dismissed from service. They appealed but failed. They now come before we with these two writ petitions.
2. The charges against the petitioners were erquired together and the first point that is raised before me by Shri Kakookar on behalf of the petitioner A. Rodrigues in W.P 35/75 is that the joinder of inquiries has vitiated the entire proceedings. It is argued that Ramakrishnan, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, acted totally without jurisdiction when he proceeded with the inquiry jointly, in one single proceeding. It is pointed out that an inquiry against both the Police Officers could not be conducted in a common proceedings, unless the Inquiry Officer had been authorised by the authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on both the petitioners as required by Rule 18(1) of the C.C.S.C.C.A Rules, 1965. It is stated that in the present case, Rodrigues was appointed by the Lt. Governor, and Naik by the Inspector General of Police and that therefore the authorization had necessarily to be given by the Lt. Governor. It is further stated that the authorisation being bad, the inquiry office has acted totally without jurisdiction.
3. It is admitted that the order directing that disciplinary action against the two petitioners be carried out in a common proceedings, was in this case passed by the Inspector General of Police and not by the Lt. Governor. It is also not disputed that only the Lt. Governor could order the joining of the inquiry against Rodrigues with the inquiry against Naik. It is however contended by Shri Dias, the strength of Art. 226(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution, as amended by the 42nd Amendment, that the petitioners must show that prejudice was caused to them because of the joinder of inquiries. The answer of Shri Kakookar to this argument is that the order directing that disciplinary action against both petitioners be taken in a common proceeding, being passed by an authority without any jurisdiction whatsoever prejudice must be implied and need not be specifically shown. The question of implied prejudice was already decided by me in the case of ‘Sudam Kir Gaonkar v. Inspector General of Police, panaji” Special Civil Application No. ??? wherein I considered the decision of the Bombay High Court in ‘Shantilal Ambalal Mehta v. M.A Rangaswami, 79 (1977) B.L.R 63???. I am therefore inclined to accept the argument of Shri Kakoakar.
4. There are, however, other reasons why I am constrained to pass the order which I propose to pass. The articles of charge contained in the charge framed against the two petitioners are ???. The first article of charge contains a charge regarding the use of a police Jeep for private purpose and another charge for misbehaviour of the petitioners in the house of Suresh Joshi at Merces. These latter acts are the subject of the second charge, rule finding of the Inquiry Officer on the first charge is that the feet that the petitioner went to Merces for private purpose is not peeved, since an entry exits regarding their ??? to Merces. However, the Inquiry Officer gives a finding that a Government vehicle was used for official purpose without an entry being made, and he found the petitioner Naik guilty of not making such entry. The finding is at variance with the charge.
5. On the second charge, i.e, of misbehaviour of the petitioners with two ladies at Merces, nothing was found against any of the petitioners.
6. There is no specific charge about the taking of the two ladies from Merces to the Police Station at Ribander. I shall come to the two charge at the end. On the fourth charge the findings of the Inquiry Officer is that it was not proved.
7. The third charge relates to the misbehaviour of the petitioners with Smt. Leela wife of Suresh Naik and with Kum. Leela whose surname is not given. These charges are admittedly dealt with by the Inquiry Officer in the third last paragraph of his report dated nil. The paragraphs of the report are not numbered, but the third last paragraph is the fourth paragraph on page 10 of the copy of the report which is on record. I am reproducing the said paragraph:—
“The incident regarding misbehaviour of the P.S.I and H.C with the ladies at Old Goa is supposed to have been witnessed by P.C 1025 and driver Justino Gonsalves. The driver has not stated anything about their misbehaviour, though the vehicle was driven a little ahead after the P.S.I, H.C and the two ladies got down. The driver, however, heard the ladies crying and one of them falling at the feet of the P.S.I saying “Paem podtam Sahib”. P.C 1025 also has not stated having seen the P.S.I and the U.C misbehaving with the ladies. However, both the driver and the P.C say that on reaching the Ribandar Hospital, the H.C asked the driver to proceed further and go to Old Goa. The P.S.I has earlier stated that they went for night checking, whereas from the statements of the driver and the P.C that the H.C asked them to proceed further to Old Goa, a lot of suspicion is created as to the reason for which the two ladies were taken to Old Goa. After teaching Old Goa also, the vehicle was parked some 40/15 metres ahead of the place where the P.S.I, H.C and the two ladies got down. This was also done at the instance of the H.C as per the driver. A lot of suspicion is created as to the reason why the H.C told the driver to take the vehicle ahead after the ladies got down, when according to the P.S.I, they had gone for checking night rounds. The witnesses also state that the vehicle was reversed and brought back soon alter. None of the witnesses and the delinquents have stated that any night round was really performed or checked. From whatever has been stated above, I feel that the taking of the two ladies by the P.S.I, and the H.C to Old Goa was done with bad intention and makes me to believe that the H.C and the P.S.I did misbehave with the ladies or at leal tried to misbehave with them.”
8. This findings is replete with suspicions, feelings, surmises derived from intentions, beliefs and ambiguities. There is no definite finding. However, since the inquiry Officer has acted without jurisdiction right from the inspection of the equity when he took it up in a common proceedings, the ??? proceedings is vitiated and is therefore liable to be quashed.
9. In the result, I allow the petitions, quash the entire proceedings and remand the case to the Inspector General of Police with the direction that the inquiry snail be taken either in separate proceedings, or in common proceedings after obtaining an appropriate Older from the Lt. Governor. The charges also should be made clearer, the evidence discussed in a simple but unambiguous way and the findings arrived at without any doubt. I order accordingly.
10. Petition allowed.
Comments