CWP No. 17334 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17334 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 25, 2009 Santosh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.5.2006 whereby she was dismissed from service on the ground that an FIR bearing No.43 dated 20.1.2006, under Section 3, 4 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1986 had been lodged against her and that after inquiry the allegations were found correct. Her appeal against the same is also rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order dated 3.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar with respect to framing of charge under the aforementioned FIR. The Court held as CWP No. 17334 of 2007 2 follows:- “It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused were apprehended by the police in pursuant to a secret information when they were indulging in prostitution and were arrested at the spot i.e. at Gujri Mehal. Learned defence counsel has placed on record a copy of petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which is revealing that the accused Santosh and Krishan both are husband and wife as petition of restitution of conjugal rights have got dismissed as withdrawn as both of them have compromised the matter. They have detailed that they have married with each other on 14.11.2005 and have comprised the matter. This fact is a glaring circumstance to falsify the prosecution version of alleged prostitution. Moreover, the case of prosecution is based upon a secret information but no independent witness has been joined specially in the circumstances of the case in hand wherein accused Santosh and Krishan have been able to prima facie show at this stage from the copy of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act that they are husband and wife, no prima facie case is made out for commission of 3, 4 Immoral Traffic Act for which the accused have been challaned.” It is right as learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that there can be different conclusions for departmental/judicial proceedings. However, it is true that no inquiry can be held to be completely irrelevant for the purposes of any other inquiry into the same allegations. I find that this aspect has been completely ignored by the authorities below. The question which consequently arises is the relief to which the petitioner may be entitled. Learned counsel for the respondents has CWP No. 17334 of 2007 3 pointed out the fact whether the petitioner is married or not has not been proved by any direct evidence but only by the circumstance that an application for restoration of conjugal rights was instituted between the petitioner and her co-accused. Be that as it may these are questions on which this Court cannot hazard any opinion. Another issue which arises is that even if the allegations are taken as correct and it is considered that the petitioner was found in an objectionable position with a man at a deserted place; can it be a case for the ultimate penalty of dismissal. It would be seen that the basis of the punishment order was the allegations regarding prostitution levelled against the petitioner. In my opinion with the discharge of the petitioner under the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1986 it can be safely held that there was not even enough evidence with the respondents to justify the issuance of a chargesheet leave alone the question of enough evidence to convict the petitioner. I find that the Appellate Authority has referred to judicial proceedings by noticing that the petitioner was released on bail but has not considered this fact of the final order in his decision. In my opinion this was a factual consideration. In the circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The Appellate order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range to redecide the appeal of the petitioner by passing a speaking order thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 25, 2009 sunita