Dismissal from service is a harsh punishment and requires a more objective approach, and the circumstances must be sufficient to justify dismissal without a disciplinary inquiry.

JUDGMENT

N.R.BORKAR, J. - Heard finally at the admission stage, in view of the order dtd. 12/12/2019.

2. The petitioner was serving as a constable with Central Industrial Security Force and at the relevant time was posted at JNPT, Nhava-Sheva, Mumbai. On 29/3/2018 an FIR came to be lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. According to the FIR the petitioner had sexually abused the daughter of his colleague aged about 4 years and 8 months.

3. After registration of crime, preliminary inquiry was conducted and the report of Intelligence Wing of CISF Unit, JNPT was called. The Respondent No.4- who is Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, on receipt of preliminary inquiry report and report of Intelligence Wing, passed the order dtd. 04/04/2018 dismissing the petitioner from the services in terms of sub rule (ii) of Rule 39 read with Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 2001.

4. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of Respondent No.4 before Respondent no.3-The Deputy Inspector General, CISF came to be dismissed by order dtd. 31/05/2018.

5. Against the order of respondent No.3, Revision Petition was filed before Respondent No.2-The Inspector General, CISF, who dismissed the Revision Petition by order dtd. 23/02/2019,

6. The present petition takes exception to the above said orders passed by Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay in lodging the first information report. It is submitted that according to the first information report, on 28/3/2018, the first informant, who is the father of the victim, took her to J.N.P.T. Hospital as she was complaining difficulty in passing urine. It is submitted that according to first informant, in J.N.P.T. Hospital the victim was examined by Dr. Manjusha, who told him that hymen of the victim is ruptured. It is submitted that, according to the first informant, Dr.Manjusha had further informed him to inquire victim as to whether any untoward incident had taken place with her. It is submitted that on inquiry the victim disclosed to the first informant about the alleged incident. It is submitted that, however, the statement of Dr. Manjusha does not indicate that she had informed anything like that to the first informant. It is submitted that on the contrary the statement of Dr.Manjusha is that the victim was brought to the hospital as she was complaining of itching over her private parts and she suspected it to be urinary tract infection and recommended medical test for the same. It is submitted that after lodging of the report, the medical examination of the victim was conducted and medical report is otherwise, i.e. neither there was any injury on private parts nor hymen was ruptured. It is submitted that these facts would show that the report came to be lodged under misconception or malafidely at the instance of respondent No.5 -Assistant Commandant P.S. Rawat who in the past was angry with the petitioner.

8. It is further submitted that the malafides on the part of respondent No.5 are writ-large as the order of suspension was passed even before registration of crime. It is submitted that considering these facts and circumstances, the respondents ought to have conducted regular departmental inquiry and ought to have granted opportunity to the petitioner to defend the charges. It is submitted that the circumstances mentioned by the respondent No.4 in the order impugned are not sufficient to invoke the powers under sub rule (ii) of Rule 39 of the CISF Rules and arriving at the conclusion on the basis of the said circumstances that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the regular departmental inquiry.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded reasons as to why it is not reasonably practicable to conduct regular departmental inquiry.