IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the disciplinary authority to follow the principles of natural justice and impose proportionate punishment, considering the discretion of the authority to impose appropriate punishment.

JUDGMENT :

I. P. Mukerji, J.

BACKGROUND FACTS :

1. The petitioner Mahesh Lall was posted as Policeman in Police Station Aberdeen. On 4th July, 2011 allegedly while on duty, between 5 PM and 8 PM near Ayyanar temple, South Point, he along with the other co-accused abducted a minor girl V. Rama Devi, raped her between 4th and 7th July, 2011 repeatedly in a hotel, in a rented room and in the Corbyn’s Cove area. Later they left her near the government press building.

2. The above finding was made on preliminary enquiry by the respondents. The petitioner’s conduct was found to be “grossly immoral, indisciplined and detrimental to the reputation and discipline of the force”. Applying rules 8.39, 8.40, 8.42, 8.45 and 8.45 of the Andaman and Nicobar Police Manual, 1963, it was alleged that the above conduct made the petitioner unworthy of being a member of the force and liable to receive punishment under rule 9.3.

3. A disciplinary proceeding under rule 9.3 was initiated against the petitioner. On 11th July, 2011 he was suspended.

4. Meanwhile, on the self same accusation a criminal case (Sessions Case No. 106 of 2011) was started against the petitioner in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. At the trial, the victim and her mother turned hostile. The victim stated that she made the section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement at the instigation of the police. She also said that in the T.I. Parade she identified the accused on the basis of training received by her from the police which inter alia included showing the photographs of the accused in the police station. The mother also did not make any accusation against the accused. In fact she said that she had no idea about the contents of the first information report.

5. I shall deal with this criminal proceeding in detail later on in this judgment.

6. By the judgment and order dated 30th July, 2013, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused.

7. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17th April, 2014 to which the charged employee submitted his reply. On 5th November, 2014 the Disciplinary Authority made a decision dismissing the petitioner from service.

8. On 12th May, 2015 his appeal to the Appellate Authority was also dismissed.

9. Being aggrieved, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in its Circuit Bench at Port Blair by way of an Original application. On 1st October, 2015, the tribunal quashed the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. It directed a fresh enquiry.

10. Consequential to the order of the tribunal on 27th January, 2016, the petitioner was reinstated in service but was to be treated as in deemed suspension with effect from 5th November, 2014.

11. On 2nd February, 2016 a fresh enquiry was commenced.

12. The Enquiry Officer concluded that there was not sufficient material to pronounce the charged officer as guilty.

13. This was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. It entered a finding that the evidence against the charged officer was sufficient. It relied upon the test identification parade where the victim minor girl had identified the charged employee. It also relied upon the statements made by the victim before the Magistrate under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code implicating the charged officer.

14. The Disciplinary Authority by its decision dated 4th January, 2018 reiterated that the guilt of the petitioner had been proved, he was unfit to be in the force and affirmed the proposed penalty of dismissal from service.

15. The appeal from the decision of the Disciplinary Authority was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 18th May 2018.

16. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, once again, the petitioner approached the tribunal. It was able to dispose of the original application on 5th January, 2021. It set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to adjudicate the case afresh.

17. On 6th July, 2021 the Disci