No costs.18.09.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order: Yes/No ar Note: Issue order copy on 24.11.2020http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.6 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 To:Page No.6 of 8The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed Reserve) Vellore.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore.Page No.7 of 8Page No.8 of 8The Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order of the third respondent dated 23.09.2005 made in C.No.B/A 28/2005, which confirmed the order of the second respondent passed in Ref.H1(1) PR No.237/2004 dated 30.06.2005, whereby awarding the punishment of “Compulsory Retirement”http://www.judis.nic.in to the petitioner.The petitioner also sought a direction to the Page No.1 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service and back wages together with all attendant benefits.Page No.1 of 8The case of the petitioner is that he, while in service, is said to have involved in a case of rape, alleging that he, having promised to marry a school going girl, married her relative without marrying the victim girl and based on the complaint given by the victim girl, a criminal case has been initiated, apart from initiation of departmental proceedings.It is further case of the petitioner that the criminal case foisted against the petitioner under Sections 417, 376 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.38 of 2004 on the file of All Women Police Station, Vellore, ended in acquittal, whereas in the departmental proceedings, he was awarded the punishment of Compulsory Retirement, despite his acquittal in the criminal case and the witnesses including the complainant turning hostile.It is also the case of the petitioner that he already married his relative on 10.09.2004 and that there is no iota of evidence to establish the charges under the Domestic Enquiry.The punishment imposed in the departmental enquiry was based on the contradictory statement made before the criminal Court and the order of compulsory retirement was issued on 30.06.2005 by the 2nd respondent, which has been confirmed by the 3rd respondent on 23.09.2005 on the erroneous ground, which need to be interfered with.It is stated that even assuming that the charges are established, the order of compulsory retirement is very harsh and this Court has to mould the relief and grant the relief, as the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page No.2 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 was acquitted in the criminal case.Page No.2 of 8The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner was recruited as Police Constable on 09.06.1993 and that there were two complaints dated 14.09.2004 and 15.09.2004 lodged by one Kanthalakshmi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Victim Girl') and her mother respectively, alleging that the petitioner, under the pretext of marrying the Victim Girl, who was aged 17 years, took her to his house and had a sexual intercourse with her and later, instead of marrying her, married some other lady on 10.09.2004, that too while on medical leave in a hurried manner.It is further stated that a detailed enquiry has been conducted, apart from registering a criminal case in Crime No.38 of 2004 under various provisions of IPC stated supra and based on the complaint of the Victim Girl, departmental proceedings under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was also simultaneously taken.It is narrated in the counter affidavit that in the enquiry, it was proved that the petitioner used to pick up the Victim Girl from her house frequently and the other charge that he committed rape on her, has not been proved, whereas the charges levelled against him that he married his relative's girl while on medical leave on 10.09.2004 and he involved in a criminal case, have been duly proved.An enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the 1st respondent in respect of Charge No.1, while agreeing with other findings.Page No.3 of 8In the counter affidavit, it is described that the fact that the petitioner was moving with the Victim Girl was duly established and the act of the petitioner had totally spoiled the image of Police Force, which attracts Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964 and if the petitioner is really innocent, there was no reason to marry his relative while on medical leave, after having promised to marry the Victim Girl and the said Victim Girl, in the departmental proceedings categorically stated that both the petitioner and she were moving voluntarily and he, under the pretext of going to temple, took her away from her house and had sexual intercourse with her under coercion and threat and later, betrayed her.It is further narrated in the counter affidavit that the mother of the victim girl deposed in the enquiry that she was informed by her daughter's teacher that her daughter confessed to her that she was raped by the petitioner and P.W.3, a colleague of the petitioner also deposed that he had seen the petitioner and the Victim Girl in front of his house in the Armed Reserve Quarters, where outsiders are prohibited and therefore, there is a convincing evidence about the close relationship between the petitioner and the Victim Girl, who has no business to visit the quarters of the petitioner andhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page No.4 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 since the preponderance of his guilt has been proved, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.Page No.4 of 84. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on recordThe Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that the Victim Girl was a minor and the petitioner has, not only spoiled the life of the Victim Girl, but also the image of Police Force for his sexual lust and in order to get rid of the problem, he applied for Medical Leave and during that period, he suddenly married another girl.Several witnesses have given categorical evidence against the petitioner, which has been duly taken note of by the Appellate Authority and rightly upheld the order of the 2nd respondent, which, in the considered opinion of this Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.Page No.5 of 8Accordingly, finding no merits in the argument put forth on the side of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code