Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2229 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. Union of India

2005-08-24

MANAK MOHTA

body2005
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The instant special appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 210.2002, dismissing the writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant while posted at Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit at Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS), Kota, was served with article of charges and statement of imputation of misbehaviour under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969 vide memorandum dated 16.06.2000, alleging therein that on 27.03.2000, he called a minor girl aged 4½ years namely Miss Madhuri, the grand daughter of SI/Exe P.R. Parmer and outraged her modesty. Thus, he was charged for heinous, shameful, barbaric, cruel and characterless misbehaviour. He submitted reply, denying the charges levelled against him. The departmental inquiry was conducted by Inspector Shri P.S. Tripathi. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority namely Commandant CISF Unit RAPS, Kota, by an order dated 310.2000 inflicted the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 4,700/-to Rs. 4,600/-in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, while reviewing the case suo-moto under Rule 49 of CISF Rules, 1969, found that the punishment awarded to him was not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct on his part, as such, a show cause notice dated 24.04.2001 was issued calling upon the appellant to explain as to why the said penalty be not enhanced to that of dismissal from service. 3. The appellant submitted a reply to the show cause notice, denying the charges levelled against him. He pleaded that the complainant Shri P.R. Parmar, who had grudge against him, has falsely implicated him in the case. He also requested for considering his case sympathetically keeping in view his long service of 29 years and the future of his children. In oral submission, while repeating the plea already taken in the reply, he added that he had a grown-up son of 23 years and a daughter of 18 years. However, the Revisional Authority after careful consideration of the entire material on record by a detailed order dated 20.06.2001 enhanced the penalty to that of dismissal from service. 4. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order, which was rejected by the order dated 111.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority namely the Inspector General, NES, Kolkata. However, the Revisional Authority after careful consideration of the entire material on record by a detailed order dated 20.06.2001 enhanced the penalty to that of dismissal from service. 4. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order, which was rejected by the order dated 111.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority namely the Inspector General, NES, Kolkata. The appellant challenged the said order dated 111.2001 by way of writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 210.2002. The appellant preferred a special appeal against the order dated 210.2002. The Division Bench of this Court noticed the fact of the case as follows:- “On the basis of the statement recorded during the course of inquiry and the surrounding circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion about the proof of misconduct and awarded the punishment of reducing his pay from the basic pay of Rs. 4,700/-to Rs. 4,600/-for three years. The punishment also included depriving of regular grade increments falling during next three years with cumulative effect.” Thus, the Division Bench having considered the entire material on record, held that the punishment awarded cannot be said to be too harsh or disproportionate to the guilt proved. Accordingly, the special appeal was dismissed by order dated 28.01.2003. 5. The appellant challenged the order of the Division Bench by way of special leave to appeal. The Supreme Court having found apparent error, as follows, set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh decision: - “It seems that the Division Bench proceeded on the incorrect assumption that it was a case of reduction of pay and increment. In fact, it was a case of dismissal from service.” 6. It is contended by Shri D.K. Parihar, learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the inherent improbabilities in the case of the Department. It is pointed out that if the incident had taken place on 27.03.2000, the complainant party would have lodged the FIR for offence under Sections 376, 354 and 363, IPC on the same day. They would have also got minor girl namely Miss Madhuri examined medically. The complainant party kept silence for long time. It is further submitted that none of the authorities have appreciated the plea taken by the appellant to the effect that he was being falsely implicated because of the personal animosity. They would have also got minor girl namely Miss Madhuri examined medically. The complainant party kept silence for long time. It is further submitted that none of the authorities have appreciated the plea taken by the appellant to the effect that he was being falsely implicated because of the personal animosity. It was pleaded that there was a dispute between Shri P.R. Parmar and the appellant with respect to the piece of land of garden. The piece of land was handed over to the appellant by Shri D.S. Chundawat, Assistant Sub-Inspector on his transfer. On vacating the quarter by Shri D.S. Chundawat, half of the garden was claimed by Shri P.R. Parmar. This was a bone of contention between them for the differences. It was also pointed out that the appellant was having a daughter aged 15 years and son aged 20 years and both were in the house at the relevant time. It was impossible that he would have committed the alleged misconduct on 27.03.2000. The learned Counsel has also referred the evidence in order to satisfy the Court that the entire charge against the appellant is false and fabricated. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Mathur, learned Assistant Solicitor General has taken us to the relevant evidence to satisfy that the finding recorded is based on oral and documentary evidence. 7. We have considered the rival contentions. Though under a limited jurisdiction of letters patent appeal in a departmental inquiry, it is not incumbent upon us to look into the evidence and re-appreciate the same, but with a view to rule out any chance of injustice, we have carefully gone through the evidence on record. Having considered the entire material on record, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the complainant’s case and the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer does not warrant any sort of interference. 8. PW. 1 Shri P.R. Parmar stated that when he reached at his residence at about 18:00 hrs. after performing his duty, he found his wife, son and grand daughter Madhuri in perturbed condition. He was told that the appellant had outraged the modesty of Miss. Madhuri. PW. 2 Madhuri a teenager aged about 4½ years stated that she was being taken by the appellant inside the room of his house. She was made to sit on his lap and subsequently lie down on the bed. He was told that the appellant had outraged the modesty of Miss. Madhuri. PW. 2 Madhuri a teenager aged about 4½ years stated that she was being taken by the appellant inside the room of his house. She was made to sit on his lap and subsequently lie down on the bed. She further stated that the appellant inserted his finger into her private part. The underwear of PW. 2 was inspected by brother PW. 3 Sushil Kumar and mother PW. 4 Smt. Usha Devi. They noticed presence of semen stain, emitting foul smell. On inspection of the private part of the teenager, they noticed that there was swelling with reddish colour. PW. 5 R.K. Sharma, who happened to visit the quarter of PW. 1 in the evening also confirmed his statement so as to have seen marks on the private part of the body of teenager. The appellant also produced witnesses in defence. They are none else but his family members. Their statement is to the effect that they were in the house, at the alleged time of incident and such had not taken place. It is difficult to concede that a teenager aged 4½ years would be a party to conspiracy to falsely implicate the appellant. 9. Thus, on careful scrutiny of the entire evidence oral and documentary, we are satisfied that the department has succeeded in establishing the grave charge of misconduct against the appellant. The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure following the principle of natural justice. No infirmity has been pointed in the procedure adopted by Inquiry Officer. It is well established that where the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on appreciation of evidence and not arbitrary or perversed, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India will not embark upon reassessment of evidence. The sufficiency of evidence in support of the finding is beyond the scrutiny of the Courts, but the absence of evidence in support of the finding is available to look into the error apparent. Reference be made to Kailash Chander Asthama vs. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 1338 , Harbans Lal vs. Jagmohan Saran, AIR 1986 SC 302 , State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512 and U.O.I. vs. Parma Nanda, AIR 1989 SC 1185 . 10. Reference be made to Kailash Chander Asthama vs. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 1338 , Harbans Lal vs. Jagmohan Saran, AIR 1986 SC 302 , State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512 and U.O.I. vs. Parma Nanda, AIR 1989 SC 1185 . 10. Turning to the quantum of punishment Revisional Authority has recorded good reasons for enhancement of punishment. Perverted act of the appellant is reprehensive. He has grown up children and served the Force for 29 years cannot be ground to take sympathetic view. The punishment awarded cannot said to be disproportionate to the guilt of the appellant. No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the special appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.