SHALENDRASINGH RANJITSINGH SAKHAVAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a constable in the Police Department of the State of Gujarat. The petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 25-10-1994 in the departmental inquiry alleging that on 9-3-1994, when the petitioner was under suspension in connection with another misconduct, the petitioner tried to outrage the modesty of a lady (particulars given in the chargesheet) near the village pond of village Medhasan. It is not necessary to set out in detail the allegations made against the petitioner as to how he misbehaved with the said lady but the said lady and another lady accompanying her shouted and upon other people coming there, the petitioner went away. The father of the victim lady also filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The disciplinary authority i.e. the DSP passed the order of dismissal on 26-6-2000 (Annexure D). The petitioner's departmental appeal came to be dismissed by the Special Inspector General of Police, Ahmedabad. The petitioner's first revision came to be dismissed by the Director General of Police and the petitioner's second revision came to be dismissed by the State Government by order dated 12-6-2002 (Annexure G). The aforesaid concurrent orders of the authorities are under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Mr Supehia learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:-

(3.) As far as the first contention is concerned, a cursory reading of the second show cause notice dated 15-3-2000 (Annexure C) might create an impression that it did not in terms call upon the petitioner to show cause why the disciplinary authority should not differ from the Inquiry Officer but the said notice is required to be read in its entirety. The Disciplinary authority not only set out the reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer and called upon the petitioner to show cause why the penalty of dismissal should not be passed, but it also indicated in the impugned notice that the petitioner was at liberty to submit his written defence within ten days and that if such reply was not received, the disciplinary authority will proceed further on the footing that the petitioner has no submissions or defence to offer and that if the petitioner would submit his defence/submissions, the same shall be taken into consideration before taking the final decision. If the petitioner was desirous of getting a personal hearing, it may be specifically mentioned in the defence reply. A copy of the Inquiry Officer's report was also enclosed with the said show cause notice.