ASHRUBA ACHITRAO BARDE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 15/7/1999 by which petitioner was held guilty of all the charges which were levelled against him and his services were terminated as also the order rejecting his appeal dated 1/11/1999.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed on the post of Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force on 18/8/1994. Petitioner was working diligently for a period of four years from 1984 to 1988 and there were no adverse entries against him during the said period. It is the case of the petitioner that he went on leave for a period of five days i.e. from 11/11/1998 to 16/11/1998 and, during this period, he was supposed to meet his brother at Rangia. On 10/3/1999, departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and three charges were levelled against him. Charge No.I was that the petitioner quarreled with Police Guard Personnel deputed for the security of the hospital/hospital staff R.N.B. Hospital, Kokrajhar (Assam) and created an ugly scene at a public place, Charge No.II was that he picked up quarrel with Police Guard Personnel and damaged hospital properties such as window/door panes of R.N.B. Hospital, Kokrajhar (Assam) and the Charge No.III was that he had taken a school going girl to the roof of R.N.B. Hospital Kokrajhar (Assam) with malafide intention and, therefore, he had committed misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under section 11(1) of the CRF Act, 1949.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had taken five days leave to meet his brother from 11/11/1998 to 16/11/1998. On 12/11/1998, when he was proceeding towards his brother's house, he met a girl - Pinky Hajarika who was looking ill. Petitioner was acquainted with her and her family. He, therefore, inquired as to whether she was unwell and when she replied in the affirmative, he advised her to get herself checked up from the doctor in the Civil Hospital. He, therefore, took her to the hospital. However, since it was a lunch interval, the doctor was not available. He, therefore, thought it fit to take her to terrace on the first floor as it was very cold. According to the petitioner, the girl was sitting beside him and, at that time, certain persons came and assaulted the petitioner. They also persuaded the crowd to assault him and, as a result, the crowd also assaulted the petitioner as a result of which the panes of the widows and the door were broken. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer had wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed a misconduct by taking the girl to the roof. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer did not take into consideration the evidence of the girl - Pinky Hajarika who has deposed that the petitioner had not misbehaved with her and that they were merely sitting on the terrace as there was no other place to sit. It was submitted that the said evidence was not considered at all by the Enquiry Officer and, as a result, the charges against him were wrongly held to be proved. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were accepted without appreciating the evidence on record and his appeal was also mechanically dismissed without going through the evidence on record. He, therefore, submitted that both the authorities had failed to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in them. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the evidence of the girl - Pinky Hajarika she has categorically stated that she is studying in 11th Standard and that the petitioner was their family friend and that the petitioner, his wife and children were known to the said Pinky Hajarika and her parents as they were neighbours and that her relationship with the petitioner's wife was very close as the petitioner's wife used to call her, her younger sister and often left her children with her when she went out. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the Enquiry Officer had wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner and Pinky Hajarika was found in a compromising position on the roof. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the evidence of the witnesses which was recorded in Hindi clearly showed that the petitioner and the said Pinky Hajarika was sitting side by side on the roof. He, therefore, submitted that the Enquiry Officer's finding that they were found in a compromising position was not borne out from the record. He submitted that from the evidence on record it was apparent that the petitioner was assaulted by the members of the staff of the hospital and the crowd and, therefore, the petitioner need not be held guilty of assaulting the members of the public or Police Guard Personnel deputed for the security of the hospital.