THAKORE CHANDRASINH TAKTSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who was at the relevant time working as unarmed police constable buckle No. 826 in. the police establishment in Broach district has challenged the order passed by the D.S.P. Broach dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground that he had committed misconduct of eloping with a minor girl even though he was a married man and thus he had exhibited a conduct unbefitting a police personnel. The impugned order of dismissal which was passed after due inquiry is dated 26.7.1982. It is at annexure C to the petition. The petitioner challenged that order by way of departmental proceedings in the hierarchy. The first appeal which was filed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police came to be dismissed on 30.9.1982 and his further revision to the Inspector General of Police failed on 6.6.1983. Thereafter the petitioner went in further revision before the State Government in the Home Department. The said revision application came to be dismissed on 29.12.1983. That order is at annexure E to the petition. It is thereafter that the petitioner came to this court by way of the present proceedings. ... ... ... ... ... .

(2.) The petitioner had joined as unarmed police constable on 24.9.1971. He was working at the relevant file in Broach district under the DSP respondent No. 2 herein. On 17.2.1979 he was involved in an incident in which he is alleged a to have kidnapped a minor girl named Urmila daughter of one Kanaiyalal Joshi a resident of Jambusar. At that time the petitioner was working as unarmed police constable at Jambusar. He was alleged to have eloped with her. On these allegations a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner. He was ultimately charge sheeted for an offence under section 363 I.P. Code and was committed to the court of Sessions at Broach for trial. The charge against the petitioner in that criminal case was that on 17.2.1979 at 5 a. m. the petitioner kidnaped the girl named Urmila daughter of Kanaiyalal Joshi of Jambusar with an intention that she might he compelled to or might be seduced to illicit intercourse with him and thereby committed an offence under sect iOn 366 of the I.P. Code and in the alternative with the offence under section 363 I.P.C. as Urmila was a minor below the age of 18 years at the relevant time. The petitioner removed her from the lawful custody of her father without his knowledge and without his consent. In view of the aforesaid criminal proceedings the petitioner was suspended from service. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Broach who decided the petitioners Sessions Case No. 38 of 1979 took the view that the charge under section 363 I.P.C. was not brought home to the petitioner for the reason that the prosecutrix Bai Urmila was a girl little less than 18 years of age and she appeared to have voluntarily walked out of the keeping of her guardian and she had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner on a joy ride. Thus the petitioner could not be said to have committed any offence under section 363 I.P.C. The order of the sessions court is at annexure A to the petition. It is dated 14.9.1979 Thereafter suspension order issued against the petitioner pending the criminal proceedings was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in service. Thereafter on 22.9.1930 he was served with a charge sheet initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner as he had eloped with a minor girl on 17.2.1979 even though the petitioner was a married person and that he had kidnaped her. It was alleged that he had exhibited a conduct unbefitting a police personnel. A copy of the said charge sheet is at annexure B to the petition. Details in support of the charge sweet were also supplied to the petitioner and list of witnesses and documentary evidence were also supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and ultimately the DSP Broach by his order dated 26.7.1982 held that misconduct was established against the petitioner and that he had exhibited a conduct which was not befitting a police servant. That the petitioner was a police employee. He was a married person and even though he was a married person he had eloped With a minor girl with consent or without consent and that he had acted in breach of law and had exhibited a grave misconduct. The DSP therefore ordered the petitioner to be dismissed from service.

(3.) Mr. Trivedi for the petitioner raised the following contentions in support of the petition:-