PRADEEP SHARMA Vs. AAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Pradeep Sharma, employed with Airport Authority of India (AAI) was transferred to Guwahati, Regional Headquarters, North-East region vide office order dated 23.10.2001 as Deputy General Manager (Land Management). He was entrusted with the responsibility of land management of entire North-East Region besides other responsibilities. A criminal case under Sections 376 and 342 Indian Penal Code was registered vide FIR dated 07.08.2002 in Sessions Case No.260(K)02 before the Sessions Court, Kamrup, Guwahati on the allegations that prosecutrix along with her friend Jennifer had come to Guwahati. In the evening, she met with her friend from where they left with a boy and a man. They went to a room of Airport Authority building where she was confined and raped by the petitioner, while her friends stayed in the adjacent room. Prosecutrix managed to escape from there and went to the police station and lodged the FIR. After completion of investigation, a closure report was submitted by the Investigating Officer of the case. However, the Court took cognizance and the petitioner was put to trial. Ultimately, vide judgment dated 25.06.2003, the petitioner was acquitted primarily on the ground that prosecutrix or the other material witnesses did not appear in the case. The medical report also states that there was no evidence of sexual assault. After one year of the acquittal, the petitioner was served with a statement of Articles of Charges dated 04.06.2004 enumerating as many as 4 Articles of Charge against the petitioner. The Articles of Charges reads as under:-

(2.) An enquiry was conducted into the Articles of Charges. After analysing the evidence led by the department, Asha Ram, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of Articles I, II and III whereas as regards the Art. IV it was observed that possibility of violation and molestation cannot be ruled out. The analysis of the evidence and the findings of the Enquiry Officer is to the following effect:

(3.) The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Chairman vide his memo dated 24/27.02.2006 disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer because of the following reasons: