IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Alok Aradhe, J.M. Khazi, JJ.
Sri. Vikas Verma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. No. 5651 of 2017 (S-DIS), W.P. Nos. 12681-12685 of 2016 and W.P. Nos. 8694-8696 of 2016 (S-DIS)
Decided On : 15-06-2022
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY - CISF Rules, 2001, Rule 39 - The court upheld the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the appellants by the disciplinary authority, as it was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry due to the heinous nature of the offences committed by the appellants. The court found that the disciplinary authority had valid and cogent reasons for dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry, and that the decision was not arbitrary or based on irrelevant grounds. The court also held that the subsequent acquittal of the appellants in a criminal case did not affect the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, constables in the CISF, were accused of blackmailing and repeatedly raping a fellow constable's wife. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of dismissal from service, which was upheld by the appellate authority and the single judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the penalty of dismissal from service was justified, as it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry due to the heinous nature of the offences committed by the appellants. The court also held that the subsequent acquittal of the appellants in a criminal case did not affect the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.
Issues: The main issue was whether the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the appellants was justified, considering the heinous nature of the offences and the decision to dispense with the regular departmental enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority had valid and cogent reasons for dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry, and that the decision was not arbitrary or based on irrelevant grounds. The court also found that the subsequent acquittal of the appellants in a criminal case did not affect the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the appellants.
JUDGMENT
1. This intra Court appeal emanates from order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ petitions preferred by the appellants have been dismissed. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants few facts need mention which are stated infra.
2. The appellants, on 18.07.2012, were appointed as Constables in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the CISF for short) and in the year 2015, were posted to Bharatiya Reserve Bank Mudrana Pvt. Ltd. Mysuru. A Constable's wife (hereinafter referred to as the complainant for short) filed a complaint against the appellants in which it was stated that she was blackmailed and repeatedly raped by the appellants.
3. In the said complaint, it was stated that the complainant was residing in a Government quarter. Sometime in March and April 2015, appellant No.1 namely Vikas Verma introduced himself as the friend of her husband. The aforesaid Vikas Verma namely appellant No.1 was working in Unit's mess and volunteered to bring things from the market to the complainant as he used to visit the market frequently for procuring the goods for Unit mess. The appellant No.1 obtained the mobile number of the complainant and while the husband of the complainant was away during March and April 2015, the appellant No.1 used to call her late at night and initially talked about her general health and family. Thereafter, he started talking about sexual matters and expressed his desire to have physical relationship with the complainant in the night.
4. Again, appellant No.1 called the complainant at 1.30 a.m. and told her that he is waiting outside the house of the complainant and in case she does not have physical relationship with him, he would reveal the recorded telephonic conversation between them to her husband. The complainant thereupon was forced open the door and thereafter the appellant No.1 entered the house of the complainant and raped her. Thereafter, appellant No.1 kept on calling the complainant repeatedly. He raped the complainant again prior to 23.05.2015.
5. Thereafter, the appellant No.2 Ankush Punia and appellant No.6 Constable V.K.Tiwari also called the complainant on 06.06.2015 and told her that they knew about her illicit affair with Vikas Verma. The complainant was further told that in case she does not open the door of the house, they would disclose her illicit affair to everyone. The complainant was forced to open the door and thereafter, the appellant No.2 and appellant No.6 raped her one by one.
6. Similarly, appellant No.7 Chandan Kumar also contacted her and blackmailed her about physical relationship with other appellants and called her to parade ground and raped her. Similarly, appellant No.3 Pinku Kumar also called the complainant and at the threat of disclosure of her illicit physical relationship with other Constables, raped her. On 18.06.2015, at about 1.30 a.m. appellant No.6 V.K.Tiwari called her and blackmailed her and visited the house of the complainant with Constables Rahul Divakar appellant No.8 and Jitendra Singh appellant No.4 who raped the complainant one by one.
7. On 26.06.2015, the husband of the complainant came back from CISF SCCL unit, Singreni. The complainant fearing for the family life, did not disclose anything to her husband. On 28.06.2015, when appellant No.1 Vikas Verma had called the complainant at about 11.30 p.m. and while the complainant was talking to appellant No.1, her husband snatched the phone and enquired as to whom she was talking to. The complainant apprised him about her ordeal on 01.07.2015. The husband of the complainant was shocked and became furious and started behaving in an abnormal manner.
8. The complainant thereafter, lodged a complaint on 02.07.2015. On receipt of the complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and a preliminary enquiry report was submitted. The Disciplinary Authority, by an order dated 02.08.2015, inter alia held that in an armed police force like CISF, th
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, HYDERABAD VS. A PRAHALAD RAO
JASWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Union of India and Ors. vs. Seetharam Mishra and Anr.
The dismissal of employees without a regular departmental enquiry and based solely on a preliminary enquiry was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable.
Dismissal without inquiry violates natural justice and requires satisfactory justification under CISF Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in an armed force and upheld the disciplinary authority's decision based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.
Dismissal under Article 311(2)(b) invalid without cogent, objective reasons showing inquiry impracticable; FIR involvement and witness fear presumptions insufficient if criminal probe exonerates empl....
The punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding should not shock the conscience of the court and should be proportionate to the proven charge.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.