UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHIKHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this intra Court appeal, the appellant-Union of India has challenged the judgment and order dated 10.9.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge granting relief of quashing the dismissal order of the petitioner-respondent and directing the authorities to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits etc.

(2.) The brief facts arc that the petitioner while on earned leave for some time, was involved in a criminal case under Sections 376, 452 and 323 of IPC at his home police station of district Agra. He was said to have entered the house of Smt Roopam Devi, the prosccutrix of a criminal case and committed rape against her and also assaulted her family members. After his return from leave, the petitioner did not inform his immediate authorities about registration of the criminal case against him and then had proceeded for 40 days earned leave. In that criminal ease the petitioner was taken into police custody during the investigation proceedings and was later on released on bail. The petitioner also did not give information of his arrest in the case and subsequent release on bail to his immediate superior officer. It was the aforesaid Smt. Roopam Devi who gave this information to the Company Commander of the petitioner. On receipt of this information, details of the criminal case were obtained by the department from the police station concerned. Since the conduct of the petitioner was gravely prejudicial to the required standard of discipline of the force to which he belonged, disciplinary proceedings were started against him under the relevant rule of C.R.P.F Rules, 1975. The Inquiry Officer, after conclusion of the proceedings, found that the charges of mis-conduct about the concealment of facts regarding his arrest in the aforesaid criminal case and subsequent release on bail, has been fully established against him. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority concurring with the report of the inquiry and on considering the reply submitted by the petitioner found that even if the police case registered against the petitioner was fabricated, he, in all propriety, as a member of a disciplined force should have reported the full facts to his Company Commander on coming back form the leave but he deliberately did not do so. Accordingly not finding the petitioner a fit person to be retained in service as a member of the force, he passed the impugned order of dismissal from service.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the course of time he faced trial in the criminal case and was acquitted for the offences with which he was charged. As such, that incident should not be construed as a mis-conduct on his part and he cannot be held guilty which could entail the award of extreme punishment of dismissal. It is further contended that the petitioner on return from his earned leave has come to the office and had detailed the entire fact about his arrest and release etc. to his Company Commander-Ishwar Singh. Thus, he could not be accused of having concealed this fact from his superiors in the force.