The judgment established the distinction between disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution, emphasizing the standard of proof, the purpose of disciplinary inquiry, and the inquisitorial nature of inquiry proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - The petitioner, an Ex Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the respondents Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), has filed this petition impugning the punishment order dated 26th March, 2016 of his removal from service, appellate order dated 28th June, 2016, revisional order dated 28th February, 2017 and the order dated 9th April, 2019 passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and seeking reinstatement in service, with all consequential benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner, that (i) he joined the respondents CISF as a Constable (General Duty) on 6th September, 2008 and on clearing the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), was appointed as Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the respondents CISF on 9th August, 2013; (iii) the petitioner, on 22nd June, 2015 was posted from Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh to Bhilai, Chhattisgarh; (iv) the petitioner, to bring his family from Chhindwara to Bhilai, applied for and was sanctioned leave from 20th July, 2015 to 23rd July, 2015; 19th July, 2015 was a Sunday and 18th July, 2015 was a gazetted holiday; the petitioner also took compensatory leave for 24th and 25th July, 2015; (v) "that while the petitioner was on his way to bring his family, he stayed at Pooja Lodge, Parasia Road, Chhindwara (M.P.) on 18.07.2015"; (vi) on 20th July, 2015, the petitioner was arrested in a "false case" of FIR No.412/2015 under Section 376(2)(c) and (f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act); (vii) vide order dated 20th July, 2015 the petitioner was placed under suspension; (viii) on 6th August, 2015, the petitioner was released on bail by the Sessions Court, Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh; (ix) on 8th August, 2015, the petitioner rejoined his duties at Bhilai; (x) on 9th August, 2015, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet proposing to hold an enquiry against him, on the charges of (a) having in a pre-planned manner booked a hotel at Chhindwara and of having been arrested and a newspaper report in this regard having been published in the local newspapers of 20th / 21st July, 2015, which tarnished the image of the CISF; (b) having, at the time of booking the hotel, produced the unauthorized I-Card for the post of Constable; and, (c) criminal case of rape having been lodged against the petitioner and which was unbecoming of the position of a member of a disciplinary force like CISF; (xi) the petitioner submitted his reply dated 19th August, 2015 to the chargesheet, denying all the charges; (xii) on 26th September, 2015, the petitioner made a representation, pointing out certain illegalities in the departmental proceedings being conducted against him and seeking rejection of the Inquiry or conduct of the same in a free and fair manner; (xiii) the manager of Pooja Lodge, Chhindwara, the complainant in the criminal case and her husband were examined in the departmental inquiry; the manager of Pooja Lodge, Chhindwara categorically stated that no such incident of rape had taken place in the hotel and the complainant and her husband also did not attribute anything to the petitioner; (xiv) during the recording of the statement of the witnesses, the conduct of the Inquiry Officer was in flagrant violation of fair procedure; (xv) the petitioner, on 10th December, 2015 again represented, seeking change of Inquiry Officer; (xvi) the doctor who had post FIR examined the complainant, in her deposition before the criminal court stated that she did not find any external or internal injury on the person of the complainant; (xvii) the learned Special Judge, SC&ST Act, vide order / judgment dated 1st February, 2016 acquitted the petitioner from all charges; (xviii) the Inquiry Officer, ignoring the judgment of the criminal court, submitted his report dated 4th February, 2016 holding the charges to be proved; (xix) the Disciplinary Authority, considering the acquitt