MANOJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.4080/2004 dismissing writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant challenging his order of dismissal from service.

(2.) The appellant, who was appointed as Constable in the Police Department of the State, was served with a charge sheet levelling three charges against him i.e. (i) he remained absent unauthorizedly for 43 days (from 21.9.2002 to 4.11.2002); he misbehaved with one victim lady; and that the appellant had not improved his behaviour in spite of previous punishments/warnings in enquiry. After conclusion of departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority found the appellant guilty of charges levelled against him and accordingly an order of dismissal from service was passed against him on 11.3.2003. Appellant preferred departmental appeal against the order of dismissal from service and the same was dismissed vide order dated 5.6.2003. Mercy petition preferred by the appellant has also been dismissed by respondent No.2. After dismissal of appeal and mercy petition, the appellant filed a petition before the writ Court bearing WPC No.4080/2004 seeking following substantial reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that one of the charges based on which order of dismissal from service was passed against the appellant is with regard to misbehaviour with one woman namely Smt. Nand Kumari, but in the criminal case registered against the appellant under Section 376 of IPC on the basis of complaint of said Smt. Nand Kumari, he stood acquitted by the Court and after acquittal by the competent Court, he cannot be punished for the said charge in departmental proceeding. He also argued that he has filed an application for grant of leave to attend his ailing mother but in the meantime he was arrested in connection with a criminal case and therefore he could not attend his duties. This absence cannot be termed as 'wilful or unauthorized absent' from duty. Further, the appellant cannot be punished taking into consideration earlier orders of punishment passed against appellant by the department. He also raised a ground that departmental proceeding was vitiated for the reason that the 'Presenting Officer' was not appointed as provided under Rule 14 (6) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules of 1966') and the Enquiry Officer himself has examined the witnesses.