The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding principles of natural justice, considering the proportionality of punishment, and ensuring that dismissals from service are based on valid and substantiated grounds.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

( 2 ) BY means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 30. 1. 1991, Annexure-9 to the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force in June. 1996. He proceeded on casual leave with effect from 18. 6. 1990 to 6. 7. 1990 for his village. During this period it is alleged that there was an incident of Marpeet in the village on 2. 7. 1990 between his family members and Shiv Ram, his neighbour. It is stated that there was rivalry between his family and the family of Shiv Ram. The petitioner returned back to his Company on 3. 7. 1990 and informed about the incident to his Company Commander Deputy S. P. Ishwar Singh.

( 4 ) IT is submitted that Makhan Singh, brother of the petitioner informed him that a report has been lodged against him under Sections 376, 452 and 323 IPC at Police Station Achhnera by smt. Rupan Devi wife of Shiv Ram and that his mother is seriously ill. On being so informed, the petitioner again proceeded on earned leave w. e. f. 20. 7. 1990 to 28. 8. 1990 and obtained a copy of the F. I. R. lodged against him as well as copy of the Medical Report of Smt. Rupan Devi. After attending his ailing mother he again returned on duty. From the copies of F. I. R. and the Medical report, it transpiered that she was used to sexual intercourse and there was no injury on the person of Smt. Rupan Devi to suggest that any force has been used on her. The Doctor, who had examined her, was not in a position to give any opinion in respect of rape as alleged by Rupan devi. A copy of F. I. R. sent by Smt. Rupan Devi, was received by the Commandant informing that the petitioner was involved in a case under Section 376, IPC and should be placed under suspension, therefore, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 27 of C. R. P. F. Rules.

( 5 ) IN the mean time, the petitioner was acquitted by the Sessions Court in Session Trial No. 201 of 1992 vide judgment and order dated 31. 3. 1993 with the observations that the offences under sections 376 and 452, IPC are not proved. He was also exonerated of the offence under Section 323, IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. The order acquitting the petitioner was not challenged, hence it became final.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the department and he was also directed to show cause why he may not be dismissed from service for not informing his Superior officer about the two incidents vide notice dated 13. 1. 1991, on 25. 11. 1991 he moved an application for granting short leave for giving reply to the show cause notice, but his request for time was rejected.

( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit it is not denied that the petitioner had asked for time, but neither time was granted nor opportunity of hearing was given to him and the order of dismissal was passed in violation of principles of natural justice against which an appeal was filed. It is alleged that the appeal was also rejected by the Appellate Authority without considering the material on record.

( 8 ) THE only charge against the petitioner is that he had not informed his Superior Officer on the two occasions while he was on leave w. e. f. , 18. 6. 1990 to 6. 7. 1990 and w. e. f, 20. 7. 1990 to 28. 8. 1990, that he had been charged under Sections 376, 452 and 323 IPC and of having been released on bail and thereby concealed the above facts from the department and has, therefore, committed a misconduct.

( 9 ) IN the enquiry proceedings the petitioner examined Deputy S. P. Ishwar Singh, who in his statement admitted that he was the Company Commander at the relevant time and the petitioner had informed him about the incident of Marpeet but he took it to be an ordinary incident and did not Act thereon. This fact is also apparent from the perusal of the Enquiry Report.

( 10 ) ON the basis of the abov