HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17015 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.09.2011 **** Raj Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Union of India & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was a Constable in CRPF. While he was posted in 50 BN at Gorakhpur (UP) on election duty, a case under Sections 376 (2) IPC read with Sections 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered against him on the allegations that he called a minor girl inside the room of the school premises where the CRPF battalion was staying and attempted to commit her rape. The sister of the victim noticed the incident from the widow of the room and made a hue and cry and the petitioner was allegedly caught at the spot. (2). The disciplinary authority decided to take disciplinary action and charge-sheeted the petitioner inter alia alleging CWP No.17015 of 2011.doc - 2 – that he outraged the modesty of a local minor girl belonging to the poorest section of society and brought shame to the Disciplined Forces of CRPF due to his disgraceful misdeed. The charge-sheet was duly served upon the petitioner while he was confined in jail. The enquiry officer provided Photostat copy of the statements of the departmental witnesses to the petitioner to enable him to cross-examine and/or lead his defence evidence. The victim, her family members, as well as two independent witnesses came forward and deposed against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. The lady doctor who had conducted medico-legal examination (Dr.Anjula Gupta) was also examined and her report suggesting an attempt to commit rape was also proved. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence and having been fully satisfied that the “enquiry proceedings were conducted as per law and within the parameters of rules” and that “enquiry officer has given full opportunity to the accused person for producing the documentary as well as other evidence in his defence……… …”, the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure P1) dismissed the petitioner from service. (3). It may be noticed at this stage that in the criminal trial, the petitioner eventually won over all the witnesses as the victim, her mother and sister as well as the independent 2 CWP No.17015 of 2011.doc - 3 – witnesses, notwithstanding the fact that some of them had already deposed before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, resiled from their earlier version and were declared hostile. The petitioner was accordingly acquitted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gorakhpur vide judgement dated 22.11.2008 (Annexure P2). (4). The petitioner meanwhile preferred departmental appeal against the order of dismissal relying upon the decision of the Criminal Court. The Appellate Authority after referring to the evidence led in the domestic enquiry arrived at the conclusion and rightly so that the penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner was commensurate with the gravity of misconduct committed by him. In the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order, the Revisional Authority, with reference to his acquittal by the Court, observed as follows:- “Para 7 [a,b,c&d] Though the said petitioner was exonerated from the criminal charges made against him under Section 376(2) of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act by the Hon’ble Session Court, Gorakhpur vide order dated 22.11.2008 but he was awarded the penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f. 27.02.2008 on the basis of the departmental enquiry 3 CWP No.17015 of 2011.doc - 4 – initiated on the counts of his administrative lapses and not merely on the counts of his alleged criminal offence. He left out his duty point at his own without any intimation to his superiors/guard commander which has fully proved on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. As regards the other two charges related to his involvement in a disgraceful event of sexual assault of a minor girl have also been proved entirely to the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority on the basis of preponderance of probability and circumstantial evidences very much enough for departmental proceedings as being an in-house exercise and entirely distinct from criminal proceedings. The criminal proceedings are considered purely on the basis of Law of Evidence and more over in the instant case Hon’ble Court has acquitted the petitioner on observation that the prosecution has failed to prove charges framed against the accused. The charges framed against him in the DE proceedings were different from that of criminal case which were proved beyond any doubt. Besides, the plea of the petitioner is that the witnesses are related to the girl who was allegedly molested. This does not however hold any water as the witnesses are 4 CWP No.17015 of 2011.doc - 5 – independent and won’t depose unless until the incident is true. The case laws quoted are also not relevant and not applicable in this case.” (5). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and gone through the impugned orders. (7). The petitioner’s contention that no opportunity of personal hearing was given by the Appellate/Revisional Authorities, in my considered view, carries no substance for two reasons. Firstly, no such right is conferred under the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 nor the absence of such hearing can be said to have caused any serious prejudice to the petitioner. (8). The impugned orders reveal that the Appellate/Revisional Authorities have dealt with each and every contention raised by the petitioner and confirmed the firm finding of fact returned by the enquiry officer. The conclusions drawn by the Appellate/Revisional Authorities are logical and it cannot be said that the evidence on record has been misread or overlooked. (9). Similarly, the acquittal of the petitioner by the court of law per se has no effect on the domestic enquiry as the nature and substance of evidence led before the two forums was altogether different. As noticed earlier, the witnesses in the 5 CWP No.17015 of 2011.doc - 6 – domestic enquiry did come and deposed against the petitioner but they resiled from their statements before the Court of law. The evidence on record before the court of law was totally different and distinguishable from the proof of misconduct proved in the domestic enquiry. (10). No case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. (11). Dismissed. 12.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 6