Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2761 (PNJ)

Satish Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2010-09-27

RANJIT SINGH

body2010
Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. Eve teaser Constable, accused of teasing female while travelling in a bus under the influence of liquor, has filed this writ petition to impugn his termination. A better behaviour certainly can be expected from a person in uniform and the nature of allegations as made against him are to be viewed with more than normal concern. 2. The petitioner would plead his false implication and would say that show cause notice issued to him on 27.11.2006 for misbehaving with a girl and fighting with the driver and conductor of the bus is a made up story. 3. On the allegation so made against the petitioner, he was proceeded against and D.S.P, Tohana, was detailed to hold enquiry. The petitioner primarily would contest the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that the lady accused to have been teased did not support the allegation and that the petitioner was not subjected to medical examination to check his inebriated state. The Enquiry Officer, however, on the basis of the material found the petitioner guilty of the allegations, which ultimately led to passing of the order of dismissal, which the petitioner has now impugned through the present writ petition. 4. The respondents have disclosed the exact nature of the allegation and the case against the petitioner, for which the action was taken. It is stated that while being posted in Police Line, Fatehabad, the petitioner was travelling in a bus from Fatehabad to Sirsa on 27.11.2006. While under the influence of liquor, he teased a lady passenger sitting besides him. When the Conductor and Driver intervened, he misbehaved with them. In fact, on seeing the behaviour of the petitioner, the Conductor had asked him to sit on another seat, when he used filthy language against him and the Driver. The bus was then driven by the Driver to the Police Station, Ding, District Sirsa, where a written complaint was lodged against the petitioner by the Driver and the Conductor. On the complaint so made, action was initiated against the petitioner for this grave act of misconduct. It is stated in the reply that this incident brought real bad name to the police as the incident was highlighted in the media. This, thus, lowered the image of police in general as such. 5. On the complaint so made, action was initiated against the petitioner for this grave act of misconduct. It is stated in the reply that this incident brought real bad name to the police as the incident was highlighted in the media. This, thus, lowered the image of police in general as such. 5. The Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry in detail, giving full opportunity to the petitioner and found him guilty of the misconduct, as alleged. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, to which he filed reply. Finding this to be unsat is factory, the petitioner was dismissed on 2.4.2007. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were also dismissed on 6.5.2007 and 4.1.2008 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of no evidence and that it is a case of false implication. He would also plead that the impugned orders were passed in a perfunctory manner, ignoring the mandate of law. The star argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the lady had not stood by the allegation made against the petitioner. It is noticed that the petitioner had compounded/compromised the matter with the lady and that perhaps would explain the reason why she did not pursue her complaint. 7. The facts in this case would speak itself. If the petitioner had not indulged in eve teasing while being under the influence of liquor, there was no reason for the Driver of the bus to drive it straight to a police station and lodge a complaint. The allegation against the petitioner is not only for eve teasing but misbehaving and abusing the Conductor etc. at a public place while being intoxicated. He is also accused of having used unparliamentary language against the Conductor and Driver of the bus. 8. The submission that it is a case of no evidence in this background, may in a way be a misconception on the part of the counsel. The Enquiry Officer had not only examined the lady but had recorded the versions of various police constables and that of the Sub Inspector of the Police Station and also that of the Conductor and Driver of the bus. The Enquiry Officer had not only examined the lady but had recorded the versions of various police constables and that of the Sub Inspector of the Police Station and also that of the Conductor and Driver of the bus. Various police Constables came to give evidence that occurrence, as alleged, was reported and recorded and so also the action to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The versions of Head Constable posted at Police Station, Ding and Sub Inspector of the said Police Station were recorded, by the Enquiry Officer. S.H.O has clearly stated that the allegations were made against the petitioner for consuming liquor and eve teasing and report about the incident was submitted to Superintendent of Police. The petitioner did not address any question to the witnesses in cross-examination. The lady passenger, who was allegedly teased, also appeared before the Enquiry Officer. She gave evidence that she was sitting besides the petitioner. However, she has stated before the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner touched her shoulder as he dosed and then the Driver and Conductor took the bus to the Police Station. She has also testified about the compromise that she reached with the petitioner. As per the version given by the Driver, the bus was taken to Police Station on a complaint lodged by the lady passenger. The Conductor, Driver and so also the lady, though deposed about compromise but the finding by the Enquiry Officer was that this compromise was got written under pressure. Such inference is drawn as no passenger had endorsed signature on the compromise. Even the lady passenger had not put her signatures on the compromise. The defence witnesses produced by the petitioner were found to be made up. They could not produce their tickets to show that they had traveled by the said bus on the fateful date. This case can not, as such, be termed as a case of no evidence The appreciation of evidence would not be within the purview of this Court. Even if there was compromise on the aspect of eve teasing, yet the petitioner can not absolve himself of a serious allegation of being under the influence of liquor and abusing the Conductor and Driver of the bus and, thus, bringing in disrepute to the name of the Police Force as such. Even if there was compromise on the aspect of eve teasing, yet the petitioner can not absolve himself of a serious allegation of being under the influence of liquor and abusing the Conductor and Driver of the bus and, thus, bringing in disrepute to the name of the Police Force as such. No violation of procedure in holding the departmental enquiry or any other procedural violation is urged, which may call for any interference. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner is grave enough to take a view that he is not fit to be retained in service. Each and every plea raised by the petitioner has been dealt with by the Appellate Authority. There is, thus, no case made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. The writ petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed.