ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, Arvind Kumar, was departmentally proceeded for certain charges contained in annexure-4 i.e. enquiry report. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the Petitioner from service by order dated 30.5.2005 as contained in annexure-7. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which has been dismissed by an order dated 9.1.2006 as contained in annexure-9 to the writ petition by affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. In the present writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order as contained in annexures-7 and 9 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) On 21.12.1992 at about 6.30 p.m., one Nirmala Devi submitted a fardbeyan before SI of Lohardaga Police Station alleging therein that on that date at about 4.00 p.m., she was in her house and at that time, one young man came there and by introducing himself as Dilip, entered into her house and asked for a glass of water. She further alleged that when the said accused reached near her, he caught her right hand and started squeezing her breast and thereafter threw her on a cot, at this, she raised hulla, upon which, his brother Suresh Prasad came there and then the accused fled away. She further alleged that the other accused was standing outside of her house. Thereafter the villagers chased both of the culprits and they were caught, by the villagers. On being caught, they disclosed their names as Dilip and Arvind i.e. the present Petitioner. In the meantime, police patrolling party reached there and then those two accused persons were handed over to the police.

(3.) On the basis of the said fardbeyan, a first information report was registered against both the accused persons and they were taken into custody. The police thereafter on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 448, 376, 511 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial Court on the basis of the materials and evidence on record, by judgment dated 18.9.1996 held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused persons and thereby acquitted them from the charges.