Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 630
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Barin Ghosh & Alok Singh, JJ.
Krishan Kant Anand – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
WP (SB) No. 108 of 2011
Decided On : 21.3.2013
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Krishan Kant Anand, for the Petitioner.
Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for Respondents.
Disciplinary action should be based on substantial evidence and should not be initiated prematurely based solely on the contents of an FIR.
Headnote:
Moral Turpitude - Service Termination - Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Section 373, 376 IPC - Rule 4, 5 of Conduct and Disciplinary Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was removed from service based on an FIR alleging involvement in obscene dance and immoral activities. The suspension order was revoked subject to the outcome of the criminal case pending against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the removal through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority acted prematurely by initiating proceedings without waiting for the conclusion of the criminal case. The court also noted that the charges were based solely on the contents of the FIR and lacked substantial evidence.
Issues: Premature initiation of disciplinary proceedings, lack of substantial evidence, and violation of natural justice principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that involvement in a criminal case does not imply guilt, and disciplinary action should be based on legally admissible evidence. The court also highlighted the importance of waiting for the conclusion of the trial before forming an opinion on guilt.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, while allowing the authorities to initiate proceedings if the petitioner is ultimately convicted in the pending criminal case.
Alok Singh, J.
1. Petitioner, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is assailing the order dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 3 Chief General Manager (P) whereby petitioner was removed from service as well as order dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure no. 14 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2 whereby appeal against the order dated 14.10.2010 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner was working as Senior Engineer at Koteshwar Hydro Electric Project of THDC; an FIR was got registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 373, 376 IPC and under Section 6 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for brevity “the Act”) with police station Rishikesh, District Dehradun alleging that petitioner was found involved in obscene dance in room No. 107 of Hotel Uttaranchal, situated in Rishikesh, Dehradun and was arrested by the police; petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 05.08.2003 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition); suspension order was revoked vide order dated 22.03.2005 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) stating that revocation of suspension order is being made without prejudice to the proceedings pending in the court of law; the revocation order was subject to review or revision in accordance with the outcome of the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the court of law. After revocation of suspension order, petitioner raised claim for his due premonition; a memo of charges was served upon the petitioner vide memo dated 21.08.2008 (Annexure No. 4 to the petition) stating that involvement of petitioner in obscene dances with women, who were not the family members of the petitioner and registration of criminal case against him for the offences punishable under Section 373, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the Act, amounts to violation of provisions of Clause 5 (5), 5(17) and 5 (20) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Corporation. Further more, since the petitioner is guilty of the offence for involvement of moral turpitude, therefore, he has violated, Clause 5(17) and 5 (20) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules read with provisions of Rule 4 (i) & (iii) of the CDA Rules, 1990; before the Enquiry Officer, a copy of the FIR, registered against the petitioner, was produced; Enquiry Officer vide enquiry report dated 23.02.2010 found the charges proved against the petitioner; a copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner; having received the enquiry report, respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service; thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no. 2, which too, was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.03.2011 (annexure no. 14 to the petition). Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3, wherein, in a nutshell, it has been stated that action of the petitioner involving himself in obscene dance with women, who were not the members of his family, in a Hotel room and registration of FIR pursuant to the raid made by Rishikesh police and subsequent thereto, arrest of the petitioner and filing of charge-sheet by the police, would certainly amounts to moral turpitude and action of the petitioner was prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and the petitioner has made himself unbecoming of a public servant.
4. We have heard Mr. K.K. Anand, petitioner, in person and Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shobhit Saharia, for respondents no. 2 and 3 and have carefully perused the record.
5. Perusal of order dated 22.03.2005 (Annexure no. 3 to the petition) revoking the suspension order of the petitioner, would indicate that suspension of the petitioner was revoked subject to review and revision, in accordance with the outcome of the proceedi
