Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Indra Kumar Ex Constable - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Through Directorate - Respondent
Writ - A No. 6787 of 2012
Decided On : 17-04-2023
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964 -Rule 10 (2) - Ranbir Penal Code – Section 363 and 376 - Employment and Service matter – Charged - Dismissed from service - An information was received from S.H.O., Police Station, , District vide letter dated that petitioner was arrested/detained in custody during his leave period in Police Station , District , which is a militant affected area of Sri Nagar, in connection with abduction and sexual harassment of a minor girl and consequently, F.I.R. was lodged as F.I.R. No. - Petitioner was detained exceeding 48 hours in custody hence, he was placed under suspension vide order dated - Charge-sheet was filed in that case against petitioner under Sections 363 and 376 R.P.C. on ground of above offences, disciplinary authority vide memo dated initiated disciplinary proceedings against petitioner - Aggrieved by order of appellate authority dated, petitioner submitted a revision petition dated however, before filing revision petition, a letter written by petitioner on sending a request to opposite party No.2 to reinstate him in service which was treated as a revision and it was decided vide impugned order dated - Whether actually led or not except with the prior sanction of Inspector General - It is submitted that only those acquittals are not treated as honorable acquittal in which benefit of doubt is given to the accused here is not such a case. So far as charge No.1 is concerned, it is not disputed between parties that charge No.1 was admitted by petitioner. [Para 10]
Finding of Court : Learned counsel for petitioner submits that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner for two charges - Charge No.1 was that leave has been taken by him on basis of false grounds that his mother is ill and after taking leave petitioner returned and stayed there - Charge No.2 against petitioner is that, he was arrested by police along with minor girl and has committed rape upon her due to which F.I.R. under Section 363 and 376 R.P.C. was lodged against him - He next submitted that after inquiry, Inquiry Officer found charge No.1 proved and charge No.2 was not found proved and trial was pending - He submitted that after completion of inquiry, copy of inquiry report was sent to petitioner for giving reply to that inquiry report wherein petitioner admitted charge No.1 that he had taken leave on false grounds and asked for pardon and further undertaking was given by petitioner that in future he will not commit such mistake - Second charge was staying in a sensitive area during leave period without consent of his Officer commanding or Commandant and defaming image of force by involving himself in undisciplined activity and establishing sexual relationship with a minor girl and thus, a misconduct was committed - Inquiry Officer vide inquiry report dated has found charge No.1 proved in view of admission made by petitioner however, charge No.2 was not found by him to be proved - It is admitted between parties that disciplinary authority has concluded disciplinary proceedings on above charges during trial of petitioner.
Result : Petition succeeds and is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Navita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 19.07.2011 with all consequential benefits.
3. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit, in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.
4. Award the cost of the case."
3. Brief facts of the case for adjudicating the controversy are that the petitioner joined C.R.P.F. on 20.09.2007 and reported F/117 Battalion in Central Reserve Police Force (in short, "C.R.P.F."). He applied for 15 days casual leave w.e.f. 12.01.2011 to 01.02.2011 to his Commanding Officer on account of some serious illness of his mother and accordingly, the leave was sanctioned and he was dispatched to Jammu.
4. An information was received from S.H.O., Police Station, Rajbag, District-Sri Nagar vide letter dated 19.01.2011 that the petitioner was arrested/detained in the custody w.e.f. 19.01.2011 during his leave period in Police Station-Kothibag, District-Sri Nagar, which is a militant affected area of Sri Nagar, in connection with abduction and sexual harassment of a minor girl and consequently, the F.I.R. was lodged as F.I.R. No.06 of 2011 under Sections 363 and 376 of R.P.C. The petitioner was detained exceeding 48 hours in custody hence, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.01.2011 under Rule 27 (A) of C.R.P.F. Rules, 1995 read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The charge-sheet was filed in that case against the petitioner under Sections 363 and 376 R.P.C. on the ground of above offences, the disciplinary authority vide memo dated 14.03.2011 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
5. The Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry proceedings and found charge No.1 proved against the petitioner however, he exonerated the petitioner from charge No.2 and thereafter, the inquiry report was submitted. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and has removed the petitioner from service w.e.f. 19.07.2011 by exercising powers under Rule 27 (A) of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955.
6. Aggrieved by the removal order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 16.09.2011 before the appellate authority i.e. D.I.G., C.R.P.F., Allahabad Range (U.P.) which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 23.11.2011.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 23.11.2011, the petitioner submitted a revision petition dated 12.09.2012 however, before filing the revision petition, a letter written by the petitioner on 19.03.2012 sending a request to the opposite party No.2 to reinstate him in service which was treated as a revision and it was decided vide impugned order dated 19.07.2012.
8. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the impugned order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the revisional authority (Annexure No.1), impugned order dated 23.11.2011 i.e. the order passed by the appellate authority (Annexure No.2) and the impugned order dated 19.07.2011 order passed by the disciplinary authority (Annexure No.3).
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for two charges. The charge No.1 was that the leave has been taken by him on the basis of false grounds that his mother is ill and after taking leave the petitioner returned to Sri Nagar and stayed t
The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry officer's findings and must ensure adherence to procedural rules in conducting inquiries, even amid ongoing criminal proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to natural justice principles. Acquittal in related criminal cases warrants reconsideration of departmental actions.
The dismissal of a police officer based on departmental proceedings was unjustified as the charges were not proven, and acquittal in criminal proceedings must be considered.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
