S. Serto, J. (CAV) - This is a Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the removal order No. 11020/114/06-SP(W).RO/24, dated 16.05.2007, issued by the Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram, by which the petitioner was removed from service, i.e., Head Constable (Operator), Mizoram Police Radio Organization while he was posted at Sukma Dantewada District, Chhattisgarh in the camp of 2nd IR (Mizo) Battalion.

2. Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.

3. The facts and circumstance leading to the filing of this Writ petition are that vide order dated 21.09.2016, the petitioner was posted at Sukma Dantewada District, Chhattisgarh and released from Aizawl vide order No. 11020/110/06-SP(W.RO)/70, dated 21.08.2006, issued by the Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram. While he was serving in his place of posting, it was alleged that he had helped one Mr. K. Lalhruaitluanga, a fellow Head Constable of the same Battalion from the Guard Room where the later was kept because of his misconduct, and also that he had also deserted the camp in the evening of 19.11.2006 till 04.12.2006. The matter was reported to the Police Headquarter and thereafter, the Assistant Inspector General of Police - I wrote a letter No. E/PH8/B/18/CHHAT/145, dated 27.11.2006, Subject: Desertion report to the Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram and advice him to take action against the petitioner aiming dismissal from service. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended from service vide order dated 06.12.2006, Memo No. A.11020/114/06-SP(W).RO/4, issued by Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram in contemplation of holding disciplinary proceedings against him.

In pursuance of the said order, Memorandum containing the Article of charge and statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior was issued vide Memo No. A.11020/114/06-SP(W).RO/6, dated 11.12.2006.

The Article of charge and statements of imputation given in the Memorandum stated above are given here below:

"(Statement Of Articles Of Charge Framed Against Hc(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (U/S)

"That the said HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) while attaching to 2nd IR Mizo Battalion to perform his duty at Chhattisgarh for Anti-Naxalite Operation vide this Office Order No. A.11020/110/06-SP(W) RO/70 Dated 21.9.2006. That HC (Opr) K. Lalhruaitluanga (u/s) was found drunk at the time of Roll Call at 6:00 PM and was kept in Guard Room on 19.11.2006. Later the lock of the Guard Room was found broken. It was obvious that the said HC (Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha must helped him to escape the said HC(Opr) K. Lalhruaitluanga from the Guard Room by breaking the lock of the Guard Room and the said HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) was found deserting the Camp Area. Further the pipe line of the Guard Room was also found broken by him with his friend.

Such conduct and behavior of the said HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha in the midst of special operation area (Anti-Naxalite Operation) tantamount to gross misconduct and grave misbehavior and dereliction of duty assigned to him and renders him liable to be disciplinary action under section 7 of Indian Police Act, 1861, read with rule 1038 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005.

Statement Of Imputation Of Misconduct Or

Misbehaviour In Support Of The Article Of

Charge Framed Againts Hc(Opr) A.

Lalhmangaiha (U/S)

That the said HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) of this organization was detailed at Chhattisgarh along with 2nd IR Mizo Bn. for Anti-Naxalite Operation vide this Office Order No. A.11020/110/06-SP(W).RO/70 Dated 21.9.2006. The said HC (Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) while deployed at Sukma, Dantewada District in Chhattisgarh had broken the lock of the Guard Room in order to free his colleague HC (Opr) K. Lalhruaitluanga illegally from the Guard Room at around 9:20 PM on 19.11.2006 and subsequently deserted the Camp Area on the same night and his whereabouts was not known even after intensive search was made. But the said HC (Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) appeared before the Reserve Officer, MPRO on 4.12.2006 at around 11:45 AM. His Pay and Allowances has been withheld vide Order No. A.11020/114/06-SP(W).RO/3 Dated 4.12.2006. Hence considering the act of the said HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) and the instructions received from PHQ vide L/No. E/PHQ/D/18/Chha/145 Dated 27.11.2006, he was placed under suspension during the pendency of Departmental Inquiry vide Order No. A.11020/114/06-SP(W).RO/4 Dated 6.12.2006."

4. After the said Memorandum was issued, copy of the same along with relevant documents on which charges are based and the witnesses intended to be examined to proof the charges were handed over to the petitioner. In the said Memorandum, the petitioner was directed to submit a written statement of his defense within 10 days of receipt of the said Memorandum. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his statement addressed to the Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram and the same was received in the Office of the later on 19.12.2006. The English translation of the representation is given here below:

"To,

The Superintendent of Police Wireless

Mizoram, Aizawl.

Subject: Reply to Memorandum

Ref : No. A11020/114/06-SP(W)/RO/6 Dated 11.12.2006.

Sir,

With reference to the subject indicated above I hereby give my reply as follows.

Under paragraph No. 1 of Annexure-1 of the Article of charge, I have been charged as breaking the door lock of the Guard room where HC(Opr) K. Lalhruaitluanga and C/249 Rosangpuia were held in order for them to escape. With regard to this, I would like to state that, I did not participate willingly in helping them to escape but since HC(Opr) K. Lalhruaitluanga and C/249 Rosangpuia assured me that they would take all the responsibility for the act, I merely helped them. I however have no knowledge about the destruction of the pipeline.

After they came out from the Guard room they asked me to join them in escaping from the Sukma Camp and I followed them. However, when we reached Kolkata having gained a clear conscience, we realized that we have made a big mistake and thereafter we proceeded back to Sukma Camp to ask for forgiveness to our Commandant and we reached the Camp on 24.11.2006 at around 9:00 pm. Although we met our E-coy Asst. Commandant but the Bn. Commandant did not want to see us and told us verbally to report in Mizoram.

That the cause of all our acts on that day i.e. 19.11.2006 was due to my intoxication from drinking a local made liquor called Dharu. I did not have any clear conscience and could not think rationally. I sincerely regret that I have done such an act and I humbly pray for your forgiveness.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- 18/12/06

(HC/OPR A.

Lalhmangaiha)

MPRO Aizawl"

5. For conducting the enquiry, one Mr. Zohmingliana, Deputy Superintendent of Police (C) was appointed as enquiry officer and one Mr. Lalhruaitluanga Tochhawng, Addl. Superintendent of Police (C) was appointed as presenting officer. After the enquiry was conducted, the enquiry officer submitted his report. The relevant portion of the enquiry report is reproduced here below:

"Article of charge framed against HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha(u/s)

Article - I Helped HC(Opr) K. Lalhruaitluanga (u/s) to escape from the Guard Room by breaking the lock of the Guard Room at their camp in Sukma.

Article - II Desertion of their camp area in Sukma on the night of 19.11.2006 without obtaining prior permission from the competent Authority.

Article - III Involvement in breaking the pipe line inside the Guard Room.

Analysis of the case

During the preliminary and Regular Hearings, the charged officer accepted all the articles of charge leveled against him except his involvement in breaking the pipe line of the Guard Room.

The charged officer admitted his involvement in Articles - I and II but denied his involvement in breaking the pipe line of the Guard Room.

The charged officer has accepted his guilt and asked for mercy and promised not to repeat any sort of mischievous act in future.

Findings

On the basis of Documentary evidence and by the admission of the charged officer, the following are Findings of the Enquiry and they are proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

1. HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) of MPRO helped HC(Opr) K. Lalhruaitluanga (u/s) to escape from the Guard Room by breaking the lock of the Guard Room while staying inside their camp at Sukma. HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) deserted their camp at Sukma on the night of 19.11.2006 without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority."

6. Based on the enquiry report, Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram, issued Memorandum dated 04.04.2007, No. 11020/114/06/SP(W).RO/20, wherein, the Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram recorded his conclusion that he agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, therefore, he proposed to award an appropriate penalty under Section 7 of the Indian Police Act, 1961 read with Rule 1029 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, taking into account the gravity of charges proved against the petitioner, he gave an opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation on the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. For easy reference, the operative portion of the Memorandum is reproduced here below:

"And Whereas the undersigned has carefully gone through the inquiry papers and the finding submitted by the Inquiry Officer and has fully agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer.

Whereas the undersigned proposes to award an appropriate penalty under Section 7 of Indian Police Act, 1861 read with Rule 1029 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, taking into account the gravity of charges proved against the said HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s).

And Whereas the undersigned has provisionally come to the conclusion that HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) is not a fit person to be retained in service. If such an undisciplined person like HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) is remaining in the disciplined force, this will deface the reputation of the Police Force and also harm the sentiment of Policemen. The gravity of the charge which has proved beyond reasonable doubt warrants imposition of a major penalty and accordingly proposes to impose on him the penalty of Dismissal From Service.

Now, Therefore, HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) is hereby given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed above. Any representation which he may wish to make against the penalty proposed will be considered by the undersigned. Such a representation, if any, should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than fifteen days from the date of receipt of this memorandum by HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s).

The receipt of this memorandum should be acknowledged."

7. On receipt of the said Memorandum, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram dated 05.04.2007. The representation of the petitioner submitted is relevant, therefore, the full context of the same translated in English is reproduced below:

"To,

The Superintendent of Police (Wireless)

Mizoram : Aizawl.

Subj : Application seeking forgiveness.

Ref : No. A.11020/114/06-SP(W)RO/20 Dated 4.4.2007

Sir,

I have received your letter referred above, and in compliance I hereby submit my prayer for forgiveness. I humbly request you to accept my prayer for pardon and not dismiss me from service.

As shown in your letter under reference, I have no complaints whatsoever with the decision taken upon me for my actions nor do I have any grievances towards my superiors. However, after all these things had happened, I have great difficulty in supporting my family and I am undergoing great mental stress. That is why I have realized that my action were totally wrong. Therefore, I am in deep regret for my actions.

If I am given another opportunity to re-join my work, I sincerely promise that I will not take liquor anymore and I will comply with all the orders given by my superiors and I will never commit such acts again.

Therefore, Sir, since you have authority over me, I humbly pray that you would allow me to continue with my service. Even if any other punishment other the dismissal from work is imposed upon me, I will accept the same but, I earnestly beg you to allow me to continue with my service.

Dated : Aizawl

5.4.2007

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- 5/4

(A.Lalhmangaiha)

H/C Operator,

MPRO

Aizawl, Mizoram"

8. After receiving the representation, the disciplinary authority, i.e., Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram passed the impugned order at Annexure-14 of the writ petition, removing the petitioner from service. The full context of the impugned order is given here below:

"Office Of The Superintendent Of Police Wireless

Mizoram Police Radio Organisation

Mizoram : Aizawl

Order

Whereas an inquiry under section 7 of Indian Police Act, 1861 read with rule 1038 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 was held against HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha of Mizoram Police Radio Organization who has been deployed at Sukma, Dantewada District, Chhattisgarh along with 2nd IR (MIZO) Bn. for antinaxalite operation due to his gross misconduct and grave misbehavior and dereliction of duty assigned to him shown by way of helping his colleague HC(Opr) K. Lalhruaitluanga (u/s) to escape from the Guard Room by breaking the lock of Guard room and later deserted the camp area of Sukma on the night of 19.11.2006.

And Whereas the charged officer HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha has been placed under suspension till finalization of departmental inquiry vide this office order No. A.11020/114/06-SP(W).RO/4 Dated 6.12.2006.

And Whereas A charge memorandum was served to the delinquent vide this Officer Memo. No. A.11020/114/06-SP(W).RO/6 Dated 11.12.2006.

And Whereas Pu Zohmingliana Dy. SP(C) was appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) vide this Officer Order No. A.11020/114/06-SP(W).RO/11 Dated 21.12.2006.

And Whereas on completion of the inquiry proceeded against the delinquent HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s), the Inquiry Officer, Pu Zohmingliana Dy. SP (C) had submitted the inquiry report to the undersigned on 7.2.2007.

And Whereas the Inquiry Officer had proved the charges leveled against HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) beyond reasonable doubt from the oral and documentary evidences adduced during the course of inquiry that-

1. The charged officer HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) had rendered help to HC(Opr) K. Lalhruaitluanga (u/s) who was detained at Guard Room by the authority due to his intoxication with liquor to escape by breaking the lock of the Guard Room while staying inside their Camp at Sukma.

2. The charged officer HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) deserted the Camp Area on the night of 19.11.2006 without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority to unknown destination.

And Whereas the undersigned has carefully gone through the inquiry papers and the finding and has fully agreed with the findings submitted by the Inquiry Officer.

And Whereas the undersigned proposed to award an appropriate penalty under section 7 of Indian Police Act, 1861 read with Rule 1029 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, taking into account the gravity of charges proved against the said HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s).

And Whereas the undersigned has provisionally come to the conclusion that HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) is not a fit person to be retained in service. If such an undisciplined person like HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) remains in the disciplined force, this will deface the reputation of the Police Force and also harm the sentiment of Policemen. The gravity of the charge which has proved beyond reasonable doubt warrants imposition of a major penalty and accordingly proposed to impose on him the penalty of Dismissal From Service.

And Whereas the proposal of punishment was conveyed to HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) vide this office memorandum No. A.11020/114/06- SP(W).RO/20 Dated 4.4.2007 giving him an opportunity of fifteen days for making representation, if any, on the proposed penalty. The said HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) had submitted his reply within the stipulated time given to him and the same was received by this office on 9.4.2007.

And Whereas the undersigned thoroughly had gone through the representation made by HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) but it did not yield any convincing argument to alter the penalty proposed above and I am of the opinion that removal from service will end the justice.

Now, Therefore, the undersigned in exercise of the power conferred under section 7 of Indian Police Act, 1861 read with rule 1029 (1) (b) of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 hereby impose a penalty of Removal From Service on HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha (u/s) with immediate effect in the interest of public service. His period of absence from duty i.e. desertion from camp area with effect from 19.11.2006 to till date is treated as Not On Duty as such he shall Not get any monetary benefit apart from subsistence allowance which he entitle to get during his suspension period with effect from 06.12.2006 to till date and the proceedings against him is hereby closed.

HC(Opr) A. Lalhmangaiha should deposit all government kits issued to him to OC Clothing and Identity Card to RO, MPRO immediately.

(P.C. Lallianthanga)

Superintendent of Police (Wrls)

Mizoram : Aizawl.

Memo No. A.11020/114/06-SP(W).RO/24.

Dated Aizawl, the 16th May, 2007."

9. Aggrieved by the removal order, the petitioner file a statutory appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Training), Govt. of Mizoram. However, the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 116/2013, which was disposed by the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2014. In the said Judgment, this Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider and disposed the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority on merit.

The Appellate Authority after examining and considering the appeal dismissed the same vide is Order No. PHQ/PRG/20(A)/1095, dated 20.01.2015. In the said order, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Training) dismissed the appeal stating that he finds no ground to differ with the removal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner and accordingly, the same is rejected. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, removing him from service and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has come once again to this Court by filing the present Writ petition.

10. The 2 (two) pertinent points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders are as follows:

(i) That the letter of the Assistant Inspector General of Police dated 22.11.2006 directing the Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram to institute a departmental enquiry against the petitioner with an aim to remove the petitioner from service has vitiated the proceeding of the Disciplinary Authority as the same has predetermined the action to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority.

(ii) Though the presenting officer was appointed, he was never present during the enquiry, therefore, the proceeding of enquiry is vitiated.

Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the letter of the Assistant Inspector General of Police dated 22.11.2006 shows the predetermined intention of the Disciplinary Authority to remove the petitioner even before the enquiry began and it was that predetermined intention which was conveyed to the Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram which influenced the whole proceeding of the enquiry. Therefore the enquiry was bias and not fair at all. A bias enquiry and findings of such enquiry cannot be accepted as the basis for removal of a Government servant. In support of his submission, the learned counsel cited the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of S. Parthasarathi v. State of Andra Pradesh, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 459. Para 14, 15, 16 & 17 of the judgment particularly referred to by the learned counsel are reproduced below:

"14. The test of likelihood of bias which has been applied in a number of cases is based on the "reasonable apprehension" of a reasonable man fully cognizant of the facts. The courts have quashed decisions on the strength of the reasonable suspicion of the party aggrieved without having made any finding that a real likelihood of bias in fact existed (see R. v. Huggins; R. v. Sussex, JJ., ex. p. McCarthy; Cottle v. Cottle; R. v. Abingdon, JJ. ex. p. Cousins.) But in R. v. Camborne, JJ. ex. p Pearce the Court, after a review of the relevant cases held that real likelihood of bias was the proper test and that a real likelihood of bias had to be made to appear not only from the materials in fact ascertained by the party complaining, but from such further facts as he might readily have ascertained and easily verified in the course of his inquiries.

15. The question then is: whether a real likelihood of bias existed is to be determined on the probabilities to be inferred from the circumstances by court objectively, or, upon the basis of the impressions that might reasonably be left on the minds of the party aggrieved or the public at large.

16. The tests of "real likelihood" and "reasonable suspicion" are really inconsistent with each other. We think that the reviewing authority must make a determination on the basis of the whole evidence before it, whether a reasonable man would in the circumstances infer that there is real likelihood of bias. The Court must look at the impression which other people have. This follows from the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. If right minded persons would think that there is real likelihood of bias on the part of an inquiring officer, he must not conduct the enquiry; nevertheless, there must be a real likelihood of bias. Surmise or conjecture would not be enough. There must exist circumstances from which reasonable men would think it probable or likely that the inquiring officer will be prejudiced against the delinquent. The Court will not inquire whether he was really prejudiced. If a reasonable man would think on the basis of the existing circumstances that he is likely to be prejudiced, that is sufficient to quash the decision [see per Lord Denning, H.R. in Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon] We should not, however, be understood to deny that the Court might with greater propriety apply the "reasonable suspicion" test in criminal or in proceedings analogous to criminal proceedings.

17. As there was real likelihood of bias in the sense explained above, we think that the inquiry and the orders based on the inquiry were bad. The decision of this Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh makes it clear that if an inquiring officer adopts a procedure which is contrary to the rules of natural justice, the ultimate decision based on his report of inquiry is liable to be quashed. We see no reason for not applying the same principle here as we find that the inquiring officer was biased."

11. The learned counsel in support of his submission given at (ii) para 11 of this judgment cited the judgment of this Court, passed in W.A No. 35/2009, particularly para 5 of the said judgment. The contents of para 5 of the said judgment is reproduced here below:

"5. In the present case, there is no dispute that no Presenting Officer was appointed. This fact is confirmed from the relevant record of the disciplinary proceeding produced by the learned senior Govt. Advocate. It is well settled that an Enquiry Officer cannot assume the role of a Judge and also a Prosecutor. Even if the relevant service rules is silent about the appointment of a Presenting Officer, absence of a Presenting Officer will make the enquiry totally vitiated as the Enquiry Officer cannot be allowed to assume the role of a Judge as well as a prosecutor. In this connection, we may refer to various decisions of this Court, such as Dr. Rajya Mallu Buzar Barua v. Assam Administrative Tribunal and ors. 1983 GLR (NOC) 71, Chelfrumog v. State of Tripura and ors. 2002 (2) GLR 604, Baharul Islam (CT) v. Union of India and ors. 2001 (1) GLT 621 , State of Manipur and Ors. v. Chongtham Vikar Nigam Limited v. Giriya Shankar Pant and ors. (2001) 1 SCC 182 , the Apex Court held the same effect. In the State of U.P and ors.,v. Saroj Kumar Sinha : (2010) 2 SCC 772 , the Honble Apex Court held to the effect that an Enquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in a position of an independent adjudicator, and as such, he is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved."

12. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents submitted that the case law submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply in this case because the presence of the presenting officer during the proceedings was not called for as the petitioner himself had admitted his guilt and the conclusion of the enquiry officer was entirely based on that plea of guilt and also on the records. The learned Govt. Advocate further submitted that in such circumstances, the presence of the presenting officer would have been a mere formality. The learned Govt. Advocate further submitted that in fact the presenting officer was present in the proceedings of the enquiry as recorded in the proceeding by the enquiry officer on 31.01.2007.

13. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate further submitted that the letter of AIG addressed to the Superintendent of Police (WRLS), Mizoram is just a advisory and indicative and it is not in the form of mandatory direction. Therefore, the enquiry proceedings were not vitiated. The learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that the proceedings of the enquiry was carried out as per law and there is no irregularity or illegality, therefore, there is no room for interference of this Court under a Writ jurisdiction. The learned Govt. Advocate further submitted that on compassionate ground, Courts cannot interfere on the findings and conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authorities. Lastly, the learned Govt. Advocate submitted that no fundamental right of the petitioner was violated in the enquiry proceedings and in the subsequent actions taken thereafter. Therefore, there is no room for interference. In support of her submission, the learned Govt. Advocate relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Babu v. State of Kerala, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 189.

14. The learned Govt. Advocate lastly submitted that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, there is no need of relying upon such rulings by this Court. The learned Govt. Advocate cited the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd v. N.R. Vairamani and Another , reported in (2004) 8 SCC 579. The relevant para is para 9 and the same is reproduced below:

"9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclids theorems nor as provisions of a statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton (AC at p. 761) Lord MacDermott observed: (All ER p. 14 C-D)

"The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge,..."

15. On the first averment of the petitioner, it would be relevant to place on record the contents of the letter of the Assistant Inspector General of Police addressed to the Superintendent of Police (WRLS) for easy reference. The same is therefore reproduced below:

"To

The Supdt. of Police,

Wireless.

Subj: Desertion Report

Sir,

With reference to Comdt. 2nd IR Bn Chhattisgarh letter No. 2IR(MZ)/No-7/CTG/2006/9 dated 21.11.06 addressed AIG-I Mizoram Aizawl and a copy endorsed to you on the above subject. Departmental action may be taken against them aiming dismissal from service.

Yours faithfully

(Zorammawia) IPS

Asstt. Inspector General of Police-I,

Mizoram :: Aizawl

No.E/PHQ/D/18/Chhat/145:

Dated Aizawl, the 27th Nov/06"

16. The records produced by the learned Govt. Advocate shows that the Presenting Officer appointed for the enquiry was present during the proceeding of the enquiry. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on that assertion or averment is not tenable. In fact, in this case, even if the Presenting Officer was not present, it would not have made any difference since the petitioner admitted his guilt at the very threshold of the enquiry because that would make the presence of the Presenting Officer during the process of the enquiry a mere formality. When the delinquent employee (the petitioner) has already admitted his guilt to the charges leveled against him, there is nothing more to do. Therefore, presence or absence of Presenting Officer in the proceedings of the enquiry will not face any consequences.

From the contents of the letter given above and in the context of the facts and circumstances, it appears that what was conveyed in the letter was mere directory to take appropriate action by conducting an enquiry as per law provided. In any case, the punishment, if any, to be meted out to a delinquent officer has to be based on the findings of an enquiry conducted by a duly appointed Enquiry Officer. Therefore, just because such directory to institute an enquiry is issued, it would be wrong to conclude that the enquiry would be or is vitiated. Moreover, the letter was addressed to the Superintendent (WRLS) and not to the Enquiry Officer or anyone involved in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the chance of the Enquiry Officer or anyone involved in it being influenced by such letter is very remote.

17. In view of what has been stated above, I do not find merit in the Writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.