(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of punishment as affirmed in appeal and endorsed in revision and says that even if the charge of misconduct levelled against him is seen to have been established, his removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the misdemeanour complained of.
(2.) The wife of a colleague in the Central Industrial Security Force living in the adjacent quarters complained against the petitioner that the petitioner grabbed the hand of the concerned lady, invited her to have an illicit relationship with him and pulled her towards him or the bed. The petitioner's defence was that it was the wife of the colleague who made an indecent proposal to him, whereupon the petitioner quickly returned to his quarters and narrated the same to his wife. There is no evidence of the wife having told off the victim or even of the wife going into the neighbouring quarters immediately thereafter. The evidence is that the complainant rushed out of her quarters, where she was alone, after freeing herself from the petitioner and she immediately reported the matter to another neighbour. The wife was not called as a witness by the petitioner before the inquiry officer. It also appears to be the fairly admitted position that the petitioner sought and was offered some food by the victim. The petitioner gained access to the neighbouring quarters in such circumstances.
(3.) The petitioner says that since no criminal complaint was lodged in respect of the incident, the matter should not have been taken so seriously. The petitioner says that the conduct complained of could not amount to misconduct attracting any major punishment under Sec. 8(i) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. The petitioner contends that, in any event, the matter did not pertain to the line of duty of the petitioner and, as such, even it is accepted that the petitioner made an inappropriate suggestion to the concerned lady or even touched her hand, such conduct did not warrant the punishment of removal from service.