LAWS(DLH)-1984-1-14

SAHIB RAM Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Decided On January 04, 1984
SAHIB RAM Appellant
V/S
DELHI ADMINISTRATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question which calls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner having been acquitted by a competent criminal Court could be proceeded against departmentally on the same allegations which were the subject matter of the F.I.R.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 10.12.1962. Thereafter he was promoted as Asstt. Sub-Inspector. In 1976 he was posted in the Establishment Branch of the Police Hqrs. Delhi and was selected for posting as a Senior Technician Road Accident Service on the Ambulance Van of the South District, New Delhi. On 24.4.1977 a F.I.R. No. 160/77 u/Ss. 457/354, Indian Penal Code was filed in police Station, Najafgarh on the complaint lodged by Smt. Vidya Wati daughter of Ram Mehar. The allegations were that on 24.4.1977 at about mid-night intervening 24/25th April 1977, the petitioner was found present on the roof of house of Ram Mehar where his two daughters namely Vidya Vati and his younger sister were sleeping, without any just cause or reason and realising that the women awoke, and the petitioner thereafter escaped by jumping over the roof of the house. The petitioner was sent up for trial before the Met. Mgte. Delhi. After recording some evidence; the M.M. came to the conclusion that the facts narrated by Smt. Vidya Vati did not show assault or use of criminal force to her with intention to outrage her modesty and the accused/petitioner could not be charged u/s. 354 Indian Penal Code . The learned Magistrate further found that from the evidence of the witnesses namely Smt. Chhaya, Smt. Sardare, Chandgi Ram and Smt. Mukhtiari, it is clear that the person who jumped from the roof of the complainant and was running in the street below on the night of occurrence was not the petitioner. In view of these findings, the learned M.M. discharged the petitioner on 17.3.1978.

(3.) The petitioner having been discharged, a departmental enquiry was sought to be initiated against him by order dated 2.2.1979. The order is (.........)