IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT AIZAWL
Nelson Sailo, J.
Bishram Yadav - Appellant
Vs.
State of Mizoram and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 144 of 2014
Decided On : 21-02-2018
Constitution Of India - 1950 - Article 226 – India Penal Code – 1860 - Section 376 - Mizoram Police Act, 2011 - Section 94 - Charges – Enquiry – Quash - Heard counsel for petitioner and Gove - Advocate appearing all respondents - Case of petitioner in brief is that was working as Police Constable Mizoram Armed Police map and sometime in year while he was posted in 1st Battalion of MAP an allegation was made by one – Held, Therefore upon considering materials available on record upon hearing counsels for parties court find impugned Order to be unsustainable - Having opined thus second issue need not detain this Court and remaining authorities relied upon by counsel petitioner also requires no examination - In result Writ Petition is allowed - Respondents are directed reinstate writ petitioner back into service with all service benefits including back wages - Impugned enquiry report impugned Order are set aside and quashed – Petition allowed
Nelson Sailo, J.
1. Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for all the respondents. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was working as a Police Constable under the Mizoram Armed Police (MAP) and sometime in the year 2012, while he was posted in the 1st Battalion of the MAP, an allegation was made by one Smt. Devanti Devi, w/o. Constable Guru Charan Das that the petitioner sometime in the month of June, 2012 committed rape upon her and thereafter, threatened her with dire consequences if she divulged the same to anyone. Smt. Devanti Devi therefore remained silent about the issue but however, sometime in the month of August 2013, the petitioner approached her again and while showing her his private parts, the petitioner asked her as to when they should do it again. Smt. Devanti Devi feeling scared informed her husband over phone and pursuant to which, she submitted a complaint to the respondent No. 5 on 01.09.2013. She also lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Aizawl Police Station and as a result Aizawl Police Case No. 275 dated 02.09.2013 under Section 376(1) IPC was registered.
2. Following the complaint, a memorandum of charge was issued to the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 25.10.2013.
3. In the Memorandum, it was provided that the petitioner while posted as MPGA duty committed immoral turpitude act upon Smt. Devanti Devi, w/o. Constable Guru Charan of 1st Battalion MAP in the month of June, 2012. By the said act, he had shown grave misconduct and acted in a manner un-becoming of a Police Personal and rendering himself liable for disciplinary action under Section 94, Chapter-XI of the Mizoram Police Act, 2011 read with Rule 1038/1044 of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005.
4. In support of the Article of charge framed against the petitioner, it was stated that the petitioner committed immoral turpitude act upon Smt. Devanti Devi, w/o. Constable Guru Charan of 1st Battalion MAP by raping her in the month of June 2012 during the absence of her husband and threatened her not to disclose the matter to anyone. The petitioner again invited Smt. Devanti Devi with filthy language to have sexual intercourse with him and even showed her his private parts to her. Out of fear, Smt. Devanti Devi disclosed the incident to her husband, whereafter an FIR was lodged in the Aizawl Police Station as may be noticed above. It was also further indicated that an explanation was called from the petitioner and to which, he submitted his explanation on 23.09.2013 fully denying the charge leveled against him. The Memorandum of Charge also contained Article of Charge alongwith list of witnesses. The witnesses sought to be examined were S.I. Lalhmachhuani Sailo from Crime Against Women Cell, Aizawl, Constable Guru Charan of 1st Battalion MAP and Smt. Devanti Devi in order to prove the charge.
5. Against the Memorandum of Charge, the petitioner on 06.11.2013 submitted his statement of defense denying the charge as contained in the Memorandum. He also stated that since a criminal case was instituted, the enquiry proceedings may not be continued and the outcome of the criminal proceedings be awaited.
6. However, the respondent authority concerned proceeded with the enquiry proceedings and appointed an Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer and also a Defence Assistant to assist the petitioner. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report to the respondent No. 5 on 20.03.2014 by concluding that the charge against the petitioner was proved on preponderance of probabilities.
7. The petitioner upon being furnished with a copy of the enquiry report dated 20.03.2014 submitted his representation against the enquiry report denying the findings while maintaining mat he was on leave w.e.f. 04.06.2012 to 08.07.2012 i.e. during the period he was alleged to have committed rape upon the complainant
8. The petitioner also submitted a represent
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.