SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the difference of opinion between the Judges of the Division Bench, the Chief Justice has referred the matter to this Court.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, the view expressed by the senior Judge of the Division Bench should be accepted. He has referred to the facts of the case. He has contended that, the writ petitioner was appointed as a constable in the India Reserved Battalion, in the month of January 2012. Two complaints had been made against the writ petitioner on the allegation that on January 14, 2012, the writ petitioner came in front of the house of a lady, under influence of alcohol and used unparliamentary words against her and threatened dire consequences. A First Information Report bearing NC F.I.R No. 31 of 2012 dated January 12, 2012 under Sec. 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated against the writ petitioner. A second First Information Report was initiated on January 31, 2012 on the allegation that the writ petitioner on January 31, 2012 without knocking on the door entered the room of the de facto complainant when she was alone and molested her. A criminal proceeding had been initiated against the writ petitioner under Sec. 107/106/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the writ petitioner also.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has contended that, with regard to such alleged incidents, preliminary enquiry was conducted by a memorandum dated May 14, 2012. Petitioner had been placed under suspension on February 1, 2012 followed by regular disciplinary proceedings initiating against him by a memorandum dated January 24, 2013. Writ petitioner had submitted a representation dated February 6, 2013 where he had denied the allegations against him. In such enquiry, two prosecution witnesses had been examined. Subsequent thereto, the writ petitioner had submitted a letter with the Disciplinary Authority accepting the allegations contained in Article I and II of the memorandum of charge as the de facto complainant already pardoned him.