JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. S.B. Rahman, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, for all the State respondents.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure-I) issued by the respondent No.4 dismissing him from service with immediate effect. The petitioner who was appointed as an Armed Branch Constable on 17.03.1994 was given a show-cause notice on 18.10.2014 (Annexure-D) to the effect that while the petitioner was posted at Hamren Police Reserve on 13.07.2014 committed rape upon one Smt. Roma Banik. The petitioner threatened the victim of dire consequence, if she divulged about the incident to anybody. As a result of the FIR filed subsequently on 13.09.2014, P.S. Case No.30 of 2014 under Sections 376/506 IPC was registered against him on 15.09.2014. Under such circumstances, the petitioner being a member of a disciplined force was found to be guilty of gross misconduct and indiscipline. It may also be noted herein that the petitioner prior to being given the show-cause notice was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.09.2014.

3. He was, therefore, asked to show-cause under Section 65 of the Assam Police Act, 2007 read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part.III and also Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Besides this, Rule

7 of the Assam Police Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964 was also sought to be invoked requiring the petitioner to show-cause as to why the penalty prescribed under the mentioned provision should not be inflicted upon him. In order to submit an explanation to the Charges, 10 days time was given to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner by denying all the allegation and charges made against him in his reply dated 06.11.2014 (Annexure-E), pointed out the fact that there were discrepancies in the date of the occurrence of the alleged offence between the one that was given in the FIR and with the statement of the victim girl before the Magistrate concerned besides there being a delay in lodging the FIR. According to the petitioner, similar discrepancy occurred on the date in which the victim girl tried to commit suicide. He also stated that since a criminal case was pending before the learned Trial Court on the same charge, a parallel proceeding departmentally may not be drawn up against him, since the same would amount to two different trials/proceedings for the same offence.

5. However, the Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and ignoring his prayer proceeded with the departmental proceeding and consequently, the Inquiry Officer found the charges of misconduct, gross negligence and involvement in the criminal offence against the petitioner to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. With such finding, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.11.2015 (Annexure-F) asking him to show cause as to why a major penalty should not be inflicted upon him considering the gravity of the charge. Although, the petitioner submitted his reply on 26.11.2016 (Annexure-G), the Disciplinary Authority vide the impugned order dated 03.12.2015 dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect.

6. Mr. S.B. Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the complaint made against the petitioner is totally false and going by the discrepancies as regard the dates on which the alleged offence was said to have been committed and the alleged victim’s attempt to commit suicide. Therefore, the same only goes to show that the allegation is false and baseless. He submits that even the FIR was also lodged after much delay. Although the petitioner denied the allegation and the charge, the authorities proceeded with the departmental proceedings. The learned Trial Court however vide order dated 21.07.2016 (Annexure-K) was pleased to discharge the petitioner from the proceedings. He submits that the discharge of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document