RAM KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of dismissal passed by the respondent no.3, Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa and also for setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.2, Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi in appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal of his service.

(2.) THE petitioner was charged with the offences of committing rape on Sukarmani Ho, an unmarried girl of the same police station. The charge against the petitioner was that while he was posted as writer constable at Dumaria Police Station on 26.5.86 he started dragging away Sukarmani Ho at about 7.30 PM, who was returning from Dumaria hat alongwith his aunt Mangali Ho and sister -in -law, Bilmati Ho. When she tried to raise alarm the petitioner shut her mouth and lifted her to a nearby bush and committed rape on her. A criminal case was also registered under Sections 366/376 IPC being Dumariai P.S. Case No.9 of 1986. A departmental proceeding was initiated and the enquiry officer, after recording the evidence of the witnesses, came to a finding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. On the basis of the finding of the enquiry officer the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa passed the final order of dismissal of the services of the petitioner. A copy of the impugned order has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the respondent no.2, which was also dismissed.

(3.) MR . M.M. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned orders as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that the enquiry was conducted ex parte and neither the memo of charge nor any notice of the departmental proceedings was ever issued or served on the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that even the memo of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner nor a second show cause notice was issued before passing the order of dismissal. Learned counsel then submitted that although a criminal case was registered under Sections 366/376 IPC but from perusal of the same it would appear that no case under Section 376 IPC was made out rather it was a case under Section 354 IPC. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the petitioner was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in Sessions Trial No. 30/96. A copy of the said judgment has been attached and marked as Annexure 1/B to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 24.6.99.