SHISH RAM Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Shish Ram aggrieved by the order of his dismissal from service dated 6.2.1996 and the subsequent order dated 15.10.1996 by which appeal filed against the said order was also rejected.

(2.) Petitioner was recruited as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short-'C.R.P.F.') on 29.8.1985. He was at the relevant time posted with 74 Batallion, which at the material time was located at Rohtak. He is permanent native of village Kulaud Khurd, Sikar district. He applied for and was granted leave for 50 days with permission to go to his native place for the period from 28.9.1995 to 16.11.1995. While he was travelling in a train, a first information report was lodged by Government Railway Police Constable Jagdish Prasad at Government Railway Police Station (GRPS), Sikar against the petitioner on 2.11.1995 alleging that he was checking ticket from the passengers and has charged a sum of Rs. 20.00 from one Mohd. Abdul on the ground that he did not have any ticket for his luggage. It was alleged that the petitioner thus was guilty of offence under section 170 of IPC. The petitioner was arrested in the said FIR at 6.00 PM on 2.11.1996. According to petitioner, however, dispute arose when some altercation took place between the petitioner and certain Constables of GRPS, which led to filing of false criminal case against him. Petitioner informed the SHO of GRP, Sikar that he was Constable in CRPF of 74 Batallion. He also informed his belt number and place where the Batallion was stationed. The SHO, GRP, thereafter, immediately intimated the Company Commander with wireless message on 2.11.1995. Offence under section 170 of Penal Code for which the petitioner was arrested being bailable one, petitioner submitted bail bonds and sureties and he was ultimately released on 3.11.1995. The petitioner was subjected to trial in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jaipur City, Jaipur and he was honourably acquitted. When after availing the leave of 50 days, petitioner reported back to his duty, he informed his superior authorities about his arrest. He was told by them that they have already received the information from GRP Sikar by a wireless message about his arrest. Petitioner was however placed under suspension by order dated 24.10.1995. A charge sheet under Rule 27 of C.R.P.F. Rules was served upon the petitioner on 19.12.1995 on the allegation that petitioner involved himself under offence under section 170 of Penal Code and did not inform the fact about his arrest to his superiors. He immediately submitted reply to the charge sheet denying all the charges. The enquiry officer however in his report dated 30.1.1996 held the charges proved against the petitioner and on that basis, the disciplinary authority passed the order of his dismissal on 6.2.1996, which was upheld by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Chandigarh.

(3.) Shri S.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case alleging offence of Sec. 170 of Penal Code against him, whereas the fact was that there was a simple dispute between the petitioner and the Constables of GRP. An altercation took place between them, which ultimately led to false criminal case registered against the petitioner, in which he had to face the agony of arrest and subsequent dismissal from service, even though the trial Court honourably acquitted him. Mala fide on the part of the authorities of the GRP was evident from the fact that in this case first information report was not lodged against petitioner by Shri Mohd. Abdul, from whom, it is alleged that the petitioner extracted a sum of Rs. 20.00 on the pretext that he did not carry the ticket of his luggage but by Constable Jagdish Prasad of GRP. The learned trial court found that the evidence produced by the prosecution was full of contradictions inasmuch as such evidence did not inspire confidence. Learned counsel referred to the judgement of trial court to show that the observations made in the judgement clearly indicate that petitioner was falsely enropped in the matter only because he picked upon argument with the member of GRP Constable Jagdish Prasad and Constable Bhal Singh.