SK. AKBAR ALL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved of the disciplinary action and penalty imposed on him knocked the portals of this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article(s) 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and questioned the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dtd. 20/5/2009 (Annexure-10) passed in O.A. No.932(C) of 2006 and further sought for a direction to the opposite parties and particularly OP No.2 to promote him to the post of Inspector of Police with retrospective effect from 14/8/2000 carrying consequential service benefits.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'the OAT'), while dealing with the subject matter, miserably failed to take cognizance of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court vis-a-vis a disciplinary proceeding and its effect, sustainability of the findings on acquittal of the charge in a criminal prosecution, when both are based on same set of allegations and evidence and resultantly, without applying its judicial mind and appreciating things in proper perspective, dismissed O.A.No.932(C) of 2006 and consequently, passed the impugned order under Annexure-10 which, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

(3.) As is made to reveal from the record, while the petitioner was posted as the SI of Police, Naikendihi P.S., Bhadrak in the year 1999, an F.I.R. was lodged by a lady Constable attached to the P.S. making allegations against him of outraging her modesty during the night of 19th/20/7/1999 which was registered as G.R. Case No.845 of 1999 and on receipt of a complaint on 24/7/1999 by the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak (OP No.4), a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated on 5/10/1999 vide D.P. No.08 of 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to show cause. On 16 th February, 2000, the petitioner submitted an explanation to OP No.4 denying all the allegations and requested to defer the disciplinary proceeding, since for the same incident, a criminal case was subjudice. However, the disciplinary proceeding was continued, wherein, the lady Constable examined herself along with others and then, the enquiry was concluded without any participation of the petitioner. Thereafter, OP No.4, on receiving the enquiry report, being in agreement with its finding, awarded him one black mark and treated the period of suspension from 25/7/1999 to 14/9/1999 as such. Against the above punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the DIG of Police, Eastern Range, Balasore (OP No.3), who, however, was pleased to set it aside on the ground that due opportunity of hearing should be provided and consequently, remanded the matter to OP No.4 with a direction to supply the documents and evidence received ex-parte and then, to pass final orders which should be after disposal of the criminal case. However, OP No.4 instead of keeping the disciplinary proceeding in abeyance till disposal of the criminal case, as was suggested, proceeded with it and repeated the punishment on 9/11/2004 and some days thereafter, the judgment in G.R. Case No.845 of 1999 arrived, wherein, he was held not guilty for the offence of outraging modesty punishable under Sec. 354 IPC and thus, was acquitted. However, the punishment in disciplinary proceeding imposed on the petitioner was upheld in appeal and revision and finally by the OAT.