LAWS(MEGH)-2021-12-8

BASANT KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

Decided On December 06, 2021
BASANT KUMAR MISHRA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MEGHALAYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the impugned order dtd. 19/1/2018, and corresponding disciplinary proceeding No. 1 of 2018, which had been drawn up against the petitioner for alleged misconduct in the discharge of his duties.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that, when the petitioner who is in the rank of Inspector in the Police Department was posted as Officer In-Charge of Madanriting Police Station, on 12/1/2017 an FIR was lodged at the police station by one Shri. Lapynkupbor Umsong and Shri. Korishon Umsong, the brother and uncle respectively of one Miss. XXX (victim girl), against Smti. Aitimon Umsong and Shri. Shngain Nongrum for alleged rape committed by Shri. Shngain Nongrum on the victim girl with the assistance of Smti. Aitimon Umsong. It appears that the complaint was narrated directly to the petitioner by the complainant in the presence of the petitioners' sub-ordinate Lady Police Officer, but the said complaint was not registered at that point of time, nor was it reduced to writing by the petitioner. On 5/9/2017, a second FIR was lodged by the same persons with regard to the same offence reported earlier in January 2017, with a further request that the persons responsible and also the police be prosecuted under the POCSO Act. Thereafter, a case was registered being Madanriting PS Case No. 84 (9) 17 u/s 366 A IPC R/W sec. 5(i) (ii)/l/q/6/17 POCSO Act, and an enquiry was directed to be conducted into the matter by the Superintendent of Police by order dtd. 13/9/2017. On submission of the enquiry report, the respondent No. 3 proposed that action as may deemed fit, may be taken up against the petitioner and accordingly the Director General of Police (respondent No. 2) vide memorandum dtd. 6/12/2017 initiated the departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

(3.) Being aggrieved with the initiation of the departmental proceedings, the writ petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.