1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3559 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3559 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3559 OF 2008 Jitan Yadav s/o Late Lallu Yadav .. Petitioner. vs. Union of India, through Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. A.D. Shetty i/by R.S. Upadhyay for Petitioner. Mr. A.R. Choudhary & N.R. Prajapati for Respondents. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 13TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATE: 13TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATE: 13TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent terminating the services of the petitioner after conducting a disciplinary enquiry wherein the petitioner was found guilty of having molested the daughter of a colleague. 2 3. The petitioner who was employed as Head constable in CISF and at the relevant time posted with Unit I.S.P., Nasik was charge-sheeted for having entered the residential quarter No. 130, Block No. 17, Type 2, Nehru Nagar of Shri Ramdevan Sinh, Inspector, I.S.P. Nasik and attempted to outrage the modesty of Miss Meena, daughter of Ramdevan Sinh, Inspector. Secondly, that the petitioner without giving previous intimation to the competent authority and without obtaining his prior permission, went away from the barrack unit and went to the residential quarter of the said Shri Ramdevan Sinh with the intention to outrage the modesty of his daughter when Shri Ramdevan Sinh and his son were not present and his wife had gone out. 4. During the enquiry it has come on record that in his attempt to outrage the modesty of Meena he has torn her clothing and after she resisted and shouted and raised an alarm, could escape from his clutches and ran out of her house, the petitioner left the place. In the enquiry, evidence of the victim was recorded and her mother came to be examined and the enquiry officer found that their evidence along with the circumstances sufficiently proves the charges against the petitioner and on the basis of the finding in the enquiry, the petitioner came to be dismissed. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the matter which was also 3 rejected. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as he refused to give contribution for celebrating Ganpati Festival. 6. The disciplinary authority has carefully examined the case and found that the enquiry officer has not believed the defence taken up by the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if one goes through the evidence of the victim and her mother, there are lot of contradictions and, therefore, it was not safe to rely upon their evidence to arrive at such a finding and conclusion. 8. Though we are not sitting in appeal in the matter, but in order to satisfy ourselves, we have gone through the evidence recorded during the enquiry and find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. It is settled law that this Court in its writ jurisdiction should not interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless exceptional circumstances are made out. This is a case where a security personnel of CISF has committed 4 grave misconduct which disentitles him to be continued in the force and, therefore, we do not find any justification for interfering with the findings of the enquiry officer or the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which has been upheld by the appellate authority. The petition is dismissed with costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.)