Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
Badal Pal
vs.
Union of India & Ors.
W.P. No. 15028(W) of 2002
Decided On : March 10, 2003
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - JURISDICTION OF DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES - ALLEGATION OF ABDUCTION WITH INTENT OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH WIFE OF ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE FORCE - NOT CONNECTED WITH DUTIES OF MEMBER - DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTION - ORDER OF DISMISSAL SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was charged with unauthorized entry into the house of a co-employee, forcibly taking hold of his wife, and attempting to molest her. The petitioner denied the allegations and a departmental enquiry was conducted. The disciplinary authority found him guilty and dismissed him from service. The petitioner appealed but the appellate authority upheld the dismissal order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner, if true, would constitute the offence of abduction with intent of sexual intercourse under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. This offence is cognizable and triable by a Court of Sessions. The court held that the respondents/authorities had no jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate the alleged offence, as it was not connected with the petitioner's duties as an enrolled member of the force.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents/authorities had jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate the alleged offence, which was not connected with the petitioner's duties as an enrolled member of the force. 2. Whether the order of dismissal passed by the respondents/authorities was without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents/authorities had no jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate the alleged offence, as it was not connected with the petitioner's duties as an enrolled member of the force. The court relied on the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 and the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, which did not confer any specific authority on the respondents/authorities to investigate and adjudicate such an offence. The court also held that the order of dismissal passed by the respondents/authorities was without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of dismissal and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within a month with full benefits of service.
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
By this writ application, the writ petitioner, an employee of the Central Industrial Security Force ("CISF"), has challenged appellate order being No. V-11014/87/2000/ Appl./AD-II/BP/2000/7754 dated December 30, 2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General NEZ and served upon the petitioner on July 12, 2001 upholding the final order being Memo No. 15014/9/ONGS (J)/DISC/BP/2000-934 dated September 25, 2000.
2. It appears from the record that the respondents/authorities had issued the following charged memorandum under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1961 :
"That No. 814250042 HC/GD Badal Pal of CISF Unit ONGC, Jorhat (HQ Coy) unauthorisedly entered into the house of W/Cr. P. Guha in his absence and he caught hold hand of Smt. Mithu Guha, wife of W/Cr. P. Guha and forcibly took her inside his house and attempted to molest her on 10.6.2000 at 19-00 hrs. and again on 12.6.2000 at 13 hrs.
The above acts on the part of No. 814250042 HC/GD Badal Pal constitute gross misconduct, indiscipline and highly unbecoming of a member of Armed Force like CISF."
3. It further appears from the record that the following statement of imputation of alleged misconduct or misbehavour in support of the aforesaid article of charge was given to the petitioner :
"That No. 814250042 HC/GD Badal Pal (U/S) of CISF Unit ONGC, Jorhat was residing at the 2nd Floor Quarter in the building of Old Welfare Centre, Rajabari, Jorhat where W/Cr. P. Guha is also staying. On 09-6-2000 W/Cr. P. Guha was admitted in the Hospital due to his chest pain. On 10.6.2000 at about 19-00 hrs. HC/GD Badal Pal entered inside the house of W/Cr. P. Guha seeing his wife Smt. Mithu Guha alone in her house. He caught hold the hand of Smt. Mithu Guha, wife of W/Cr. P. Guha, forcibly took her to his house and indulged for dishonest act and asked her to compromise with him. Somehow, Smt. Mithu Guha managed to escape from the grip of HC/GD Badal Pal and came to her Quarter. On 12-6-2000 at about 13-00 hrs. HC/GD Badal Pal again entered into the house of W/Cr. P. Guha and committed similar offence with the wife of W/Cr. P. Guha. But he could not succeed because she shouted for help and immediately HC/GD Badal Pal ran away from the house. This act on the part of No. 814250042 HC/GD Badal Pal constitute gross misconduct, indiscipline and conduct highly unbecoming of a member of Armed Force like CISF." (Emphasis supplied)
4. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid charge. The respondents/authorities made departmental enquiry wherein Smt. Mithu Guha, her husband and three other employees gave evidence in support of charge while the petitioner alone deposed disputing the aforesaid allegation. Ultimately the disciplinary authority found him guilty and dismissed him from service. Being dissatisfied the petitioner preferred appeal but the same also ended in dismissal.
5. There is no dispute that the said Smt. Mithu Guha did not lodge any complaint before the police authority and no criminal case in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure has been even initiated against the petitioner and as such, no question of medical examination of the petitioner and the said Smt. Mithu Guha arose. Even in the departmental proceeding there was no eyewitness of the alleged incident and all the four witnesses deposed what they had heard from Smt. Mithu Guha.
When the aforesaid writ application came up for hearing, this court before inviting affidavit from respondents wanted to hear this writ application on a preliminary point whether under such circumstances the respondents/authorities were competent to initiate disciplinary proceeding and ultimately dismiss the petitioner by making enquiry about the alleged offence which is a criminal one within the meaning of section 366 of Indian Penal Code and conclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. Accordingly, I have heard Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Sengupta appearing on behalf of the respondents on the aforesaid preliminary
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
