UNION OF INDIA Vs. EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Union of India, in the instant appeal, has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi substituting the penalty of removal from service inflicted on the respondent after holding disciplinary inquiry as provided under Rule 27 of The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter being referred to as the "Rules 1955 ") with confinement of respondent from 1.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. in quarter guard jail without noticing the mandate of the nature of punishments indicated under Section 11(1) of The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter being referred to as the "Act 1949 ").

(3.) The brief facts of the case culled out from the record are that the respondent joined service with the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1983 and was on attachment duty at Group Centre, CRPF. In 2003, his wife was under treatment of Dr. Nazir, Gynaecologist (complainant). On 12th September 2003, the respondent accompanied with his wife forcibly entered into the chamber of the Dr. Nazir­complainant and asked him to attest the reimbursement of medical claims and upon his refusal, the respondent verbally abused and physically struck the Doctor­Complainant, resulting in injuries. He was escorted out by the Constable Suresh, who also happened to see the conduct of the respondent and his wife. Respondent not only misbehaved and abused the Doctor­complainant while on duty in which he sustained injuries on his face but to conceal his misconduct, he made a false allegation of sexual harassment on his wife against the Doctor­complainant. For such a gross misconduct, which he had committed while in service, he was placed under suspension and a Charge Memo dated 29th October, 2003 for holding disciplinary inquiry under Rule 27 of the Rules 1955 came to be served upon him for (i) violation of Section 11(1) of the Rules 1955, for misbehaving and abusing and injuring the Doctor­complainant while on official duty; and (ii) for instituting false criminal charges of sexual harassment against the Doctor­complainant. Article of Charge 1 and Charge 2 of the Charge Memo along with the details are reproduced hereunder:­