IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 37 (SS) of 2011 Ex Constable 383 Civil Police Amrit Pal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner was a Constable in Uttarakhand Civil Police. In the year 2008 while he was doing training at Police Station Kashipur as Constable, he was charged that on 18.12.2008 he had spoken to a woman (name not being disclosed) from his mobile number 9410979722 on the mobile number of that woman which was 9927917135 and thereafter giving his own identity asked her to meet him at a particular place. The lady in turn informed this to her family members including her husband and the petitioner was napped at the designated place. 3. Thereafter an inquiry was conducted. In defence, the petitioner stated that between 3.11.2008 to 18.12.2008 for about one and half month he was at Police Station, Kashipur. He is known to a person called “Banti” who used to stay at Peerumadara Ramnagar, Nainital. The petitioner further stated that he received certain calls from his mobile no. 9927917135 in which abusive language was used against him and therefore, his friend “Banti” wanted to know the name of the person who was using 2 such a language. The petitioner admits that on several occasions he made conversation on the mobile number 9927917135. 4. Departmental proceedings were instituted against the petitioner, which was conduced by the concerned Circle Officer. After concluding the inquiry, inquiry report was submitted on 31.3.2009. Several witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer including the complainant and her husband. It has been written in the inquiry report that although after having been given an opportunity, the petitioner refused to cross-examine these witnesses. Husband of the complaint was examined, who stated that on her mobile number 9927917135 he received two calls from two mobile numbers i.e. 9917179376 and 9410979722 which was assigned to the petitioner where he made a rather filthy language. The complainant and her husband laid down a trap and on instructions from her husband, the complainant asked the petitioner to meet her at a particular place and when this was done the petitioner was nabbed. Entire record of the petitioner along with the inquiry report was examined by the concerned department. Apart from this, it was admitted that the two mobile numbers i.e. 9917179376 and 9410979722 belongs to the petitioner and two mobile numbers i.e. 9927917135 and 9917688997 belongs to the concerned woman i.e. the complainant. Two calls have also been traced and the details of this call are also on record. From the inquiry report, it is evident that between 13.12.2008 to 17.12.2008 and 18.12.2008, the petitioner called the lady about twelve times. Some of the duration of these calls are 673 second, 297 second, 515 second etc. These are the evidence against the petitioner. 3 5. The inquiry officer was of the view that the petitioner being a member of a disciplined force unnecessarily harassed a woman by giving calls on her mobile number, which is evident from the record. It is also admitted that he used to talk obscenities. By this act of the petitioner the image of the Police Department is also lowered in the eyes of the public and thereafter the disciplinary authority recommended that since the charges are proved against the petitioner, his services should be terminated. Based on the inquiry and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the appointing authority passed order dated 18.7.2009 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a statutory appeal before the said authority, which was also dismissed in the year 2009. 6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner moved a revision under Rule 23 before the Additional D.G.P., which was also dismissed and the punishment of dismissal was confirmed. Thereafter the petitioner filed present writ petition before this Court. This Court finds that there is absolutely no procedural irregularity as far as disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner are concerned. The charges as against the petitioner considering that the petitioner is a member of a disciplined force i.e. Police Department are serious enough and therefore the petitioner’s services were liable to be terminated. Therefore, this Court finds no anomaly in the ultimate termination of the services of the petitioner which has been done after a due process where charges have been proved against the petitioner and order of termination of service has been confirmed in departmental appeal as well in subsequent revision. 4 7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should not remain in the police department. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a young man, presently 24 years of age and as stated by counsel for the petitioner at the relevant time he was 22 years of age, it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence imposed against the petitioner is altered from dismissal to that of removal. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally made a submission that the charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be sustained as the complaint made by the lady concerned has no value, inasmuch as the concerned lady, after the enquiry had completed, gave a statement that the petitioner may not be terminated from service. This fact has not been considered by the Police Department. This argument of the petitioner is totally misconceived. The statement of the woman concerned after a departmental proceeding were over is of a no value. Moreover, the concerned woman has not denied the charges. She has also stated that she has no issues with the petitioner any more. This has absolutely no relevance in the departmental proceeding or on its out come. 9. With the above modification of the impugned order i.e. the termination of the petitioner shall be treated to be removal from service and not as dismissal of service. The remaining prayer made in the writ petition is dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 17.11.2011 VKG