PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the petitioner was posted as a constable in Bilhaur in District Kanpur Nagar in the year 2000, a First Information Report was registered against him under Section 498 IPC for enticing a married women with the intention of having an illicit relationship. Based on the registration of the case, the petitioner was suspended, and subsequently by another order dated 22 -5 -2001, the suspension order was revoked subject to the continuation of the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner was charge sheeted. He submitted a reply which was not found satisfactory and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a domestic enquiry. The Inquiry Officer, after giving full opportunity to the petitioner, submitted an enquiry report. Based on the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner submitted his reply and the Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry report, and the reply of the petitioner, passed an order dated 17 -7 -2002 dismissing the petitioner from the service.

(2.) AGGRIEVED , the petitioner filed writ petition No. 32856 of 2002 which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Consequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected by an order dated 30 -11 -2002, and thereafter, the revision of the petitioner was also dismissed by an order dated 25 -1 -2003. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the aforesaid orders and for the reinstatement in the service.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the same charge, criminal proceedings were initiated, in which a final report was submitted which was accepted by the Criminal Court, and therefore, the charge against the petitioner under Section 498 IPC was not proved in the criminal proceedings and that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges. Since the charges were purely criminal in nature, consequently, the said charges could not be made the subject matter of a departmental action against the petitioner. The petitioner further submitted that the lady in question had also given an affidavit and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which she denied having any kind of a relationship with the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement and affidavit has not been considered by the Inquiry Officer.