M KOTESWARA RAO Vs. SENIOR COMMANDANT CISF UNIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been instituted by a Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (henceforth referred to as the Security Force) questioning the legality and validity of the proceedings dated 24-09-2007, whereby the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry by framing the following two Articles of Charge: Article-I That No.902293157 Constable M. Koteswara Rao of CISF Unit, SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota was detailed for C shift duty from 2100 hrs on 14.08.2007 to 0500 hrs on 15.08.2007 at Cable patrolling, but he did not report for duty and remained absent from duty, which amounts to dereliction of duty on his part. Hence, the charge. Article-II That No.844509866 Head Constable (GD) N.K. Singha of CISF Unit, SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota is residing in Govt. family quarter No.138, PHC I, SDSC SHAR, Sriharikota along with his wife named Smt. Nupur Singha. On 13.08.2007 at about 2140 hrs, No.902293157 Constable M. Koteswara Rao came inside the boundary of quarter No.138, PHC I of No.844509866 Head Constable (GD) N.K. Singha in absence of HC (GD) N.K. Singha, gagged the mouth of Smt. Nupur Singha wife of HC (GD) N.K. Singha and took her to some distance in the jungle, assaulted her and sexually abused her by using criminal force, which amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline on the part of No.902293157 Constable M. Koteswara Rao. Hence, the charge.

(2.) HE also challenges the proceedings dated 01-01-2008, wherein the 3rd respondent Assistant Commandant of the Security Force has been appointed as an Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry into the above Articles of Charge. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Constable to the Force on 25-05-1990 and that while he was working at Satish Dawan Space Center, Sriharikota, wife of one of his senior colleagues has lodged a complaint with the local police on 14-08-2007, alleging that he has outraged her modesty and consequently, Crime No.28 of 2007 has been registered by the local police at Suloorpet and he is now being prosecuted in respect thereof. The defense set up by the petitioner is that he has performed the second shift duties on 13-08-2007 and additional duty between 8-30 and 9-30 am on 14-08-2007 and because of a strained relationship between his senior colleague and himself arising out of certain financial transactions, he has been falsely implicated in a very grave and serious offence. In the mean time, the alleged incident had been taken serious note of by the senior level officers of the Security Force. The petitioner has been examined by them and persons considered appropriate and relevant have also been examined by the senior officials of the Security Force. As a sequel, the impugned charge memorandum dated 24-09-2007 has been issued, subjecting the writ petitioner for disciplinary action in terms of Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, validity of which has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) THIS apart, the local police have already filed a charge sheet against the petitioner based upon the complaint said to have been lodged by the alleged victim. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed in the matter, sworn to by the Senior Commandant of the Security Force. It has brought out all the facts, a gist of which has already been adverted to supra. It was also brought out that the writ petitioner was arrested by the police at Sriharikota on 15-08-2007 and he was remanded to judicial custody at Sub Jail, Gudur, immediately. It was also further brought out that the writ petitioner has been consequently placed under suspension by an order passed on 17-08-2007, in view of his detention for more than 48 hours in custody. It was further brought out that preliminary inquiry into the very same incident was got conducted by Sri S.Bhagat, Deputy Commandant of the Security Force, who submitted his report on 17-08-2007. The Senior Commandant, at great length, dealt with as to how the morale of the Security Force would be jeopardized if members of the Security Force indulge in grave acts of misconduct, like in the instant case.