MAHESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was a Constable, placed on trial before learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City for having hurled obscene words at a young girl Laxmi. Finding those words offensive to the chastity and modesty of girl, the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated March 17, 1986 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 294, 341 and 509 IPC. Partly allowing the appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City vide judgment dated December 13, 1990 although confirmed the conviction of the appellant, released him on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the condition that appellant would not repeat the offence in future and observe peace for three years.

(2.) A look at the material on record demonstrates that after the Magistrate convicted and sentenced the appellant, the Superintendent of Police Jaipur City vide order dated July 2, 1986 dismissed the appellant from service. However, the DIG Police Jaipur Range set aside the order of removal vide order dated November 10, 1987 and took back the appellant in service with the condition that appellant shall be placed under suspension till the decision of criminal appeal. After the decision in Criminal Appeal, the appellant placed the copy of the judgment dated December 13,1990 before the Supdt. of Police Jaipur City, who passed an order dated February 27, 1991 dismissing the appellant from service. The departmental appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the DIG Jaipur Range on September 19, 1992. Review petition against those orders was also dismissed by His Excellency Governor on June 3, 1994.

(3.) SMT . Naina Saraf, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently canvassed that the allegation against the appellant did not indicate moral turpitude. The Supdt. of Police had no authority to pass an order of dismissal against the appellant. The penalty of removal imposed without applying judicial mind was improper. Dismissal from service for the minor punishment under Sections 294, 341 and 509 IPC was harsh. According to learned Counsel the appellant was innocent and falsely implicated in the criminal case. Reliance is placed on Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana : (1996)IILLJ703SC , Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway v. T.R. Challappan : (1976)ILLJ68SC and Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar : AIR2001SC1092 .