DAYASHANKAR RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the enquiry report as contained under Annexuer-4 and 5 has been sought to be quashed with a further direction upon the opposite party no.5 to take appropriate action under the provision of Section 8/18 of the CISF Act in terms of the enquiry report vide Annexure-3.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as has been pleaded in the writ petition that while the petitioner was working as Constable, scuffle has been entered in between him and V.S. Pathak. It has been alleged by the petitioner that since he belongs to SC and ST community, as such he has been called upon by taking his caste name which is prohibited under the provision of SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. He, therefore has made complaint before the competent authority, the competent authority initiated against the said complaint by constituting a Committee to submit preliminary enquiry report.

(3.) Opposite parties have appeared and filed counter affidavit inter alia stating therein that Annexure-3 has been issued saying therein that caste abuse against V.S. Pathak is exist but the aforesaid report has been given only on the basis of the statement given by one Constable Sabhajeet who has said "Tum jhoot bol raha hai pata nahi kahan se fauj main chure phure aa jate hain. Sipahi ho sipahi ke awqat main raho." It has been contended that the said enquiry report is wholly on the basis of the statement of Constable Sabhajeet, while the other 12 witnesses have not supported the aforesaid allegations against Shri V.S. Pathak. Further it has been contended that even if the statement of Constable Sabhajeet as has been recorded disclosing therein that the word "chure phure" has been used against the petitioner that does not mean that any word taking the name of the caste since "chure phure" there is no caste like that.