Full Judgment
* % + W.P.(C) 15819/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Delivered on: February 16, 2017 BHAGAT SINGH Through: None. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ........ Petitioner
......... RESPONDENTS
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Mr. Vishu Agarwal and Mr. Rahul Singhai, Advocates with Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA JUDGMENT INDIRA BANERJEE, J1 In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order No F/4/29/90/ Estt (CRPF) (Pers II) dated 22.10.1993 whereby penalty of “Dismissal from Service” was imposed on the petitioner, a Commandant of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).
2. The petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Commissioned Officer in October 1958. After his release from the Indian Army in August 1968, the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy ===================================================================== W.P.(C) No.15819/2016 Page 1 of 6 Superintendent of Police of the CRPF. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Commandant.
3. The petition was placed under suspension w.e.f. 20.12.1990 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 28.04.1994 on the following articles of charges, “ARTICLE-I the period (Punjab) during Shri Bhagat Singh while functioning as commandant 66th Bn.CRPF at ITI complex, Patti, Amritsar from 27.08.1990 to 7.10.1990 had indulged in unnatural sex forcibly on 7.10.1990 with No.840390011 Ct. Ashok Kumar mainthy in his bedroom of the GOs mess 66th Bn. he thereby committed a grave misconduct which was unbecoming of a government servant and violates the provisions of the rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. ARTICLE-II That Shri Bhagat Singh functioned as commandant 66th Bn. CRPF from 27.8.1990 to 07.10.1999. On 07.10.1990 he indulged in nanatural sex and threat of force by pistol against No.840390011 Ct. Ashok Kumar Maiti. He also showered abuses on the said constable. In this process there was injury to the male organ of Shri Bhagat Singh. He disobeyed the direction of the appropriate medical authority to undergo/medical examination in this context. He committed misconduct, which was unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby ===================================================================== W.P.(C) No.15819/2016 Page 2 of 6 violated provision of Rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-III That Shri Bhagat Singh functioned as commandant 66th Bn. CRPF from 27.08.1990 to 07.10.1999. During September 1990 he utilized No.861260026 Ct. Lalit Lama to do body massage including his private parts by abusing his authority. He thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and violated the provisions of Rules 3(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-IV Lalit Lama That Shri Bhagat Singh functioned as commandant 66th Bn. CRPF from 27.08.1990 to 07.10.1999. During September 1990 he demanded the services of No.861260026 Ct. and No.881310517 Ct. N.T. Lepcha for the purposes not connected with the Force but to gratify his homosexual urges and carnal desires by abusing his authority. therefore unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violating the provisions of rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) rules, 1964.” His conduct was 4. The petitioner replied to the chargesheet, denying all the material allegations levelled against him in the chargesheet. Accordingly, inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. ===================================================================== W.P.(C) No.15819/2016 Page 3 of 6 5. In his Written Statement of Defence dated 23.04.1991, the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him, after which a full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted by the DIG CRPF, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer.
6. The enquiry was conducted ex parte, since the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer found that the Article of Charge No.1 framed against the petitioner was proved, and the Articles of Charge Nos. II, III and IV were partially proved.
7. A copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his representation against the report of the enquiry officer. However, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner.
8. The... Petitioner
appealed to the President of India. The President, after consideration of the report of the enquiry officer, the representation dated 24.12.1992 and other relevant records, and after going through the advice of Union Public Service Commission, came to the conclusion that Articles of Charge No I, II and III were proved and the Article of Charge IV was not proved. The President, thus, imposed on the petitioner the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” 9. About 4 years after imposition of the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” on the petitioner, a criminal case instituted ===================================================================== W.P.(C) No.15819/2016 Page 4 of 6 against the petitioner under section
of the Indian Penal Code and 06.07.1997 was dismissed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate Patti.
10. After dismissal of the criminal case, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that he is entitled to be reinstated in service. It is however well-settled that departmental proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings and acquittal in a criminal case does not entail the consequence of withdrawal of the order of punishment.
11. The acquittal of the petitioner may have had its impact on the departmental action if the same had been the outcome of the order of conviction. That is not so. Even otherwise, it seems that the order of acquittal is on technical grounds such as delay in filing FIR, and non-examination of relevant witnesses.
12. In any case the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges under Section
of the Indian Penal Code. There are other charges against the petitioner, which have been established. Moral turpitude in itself is misconduct. The petitioner has been penalised and dismissed from service, in accordance with law, after he was found guilty in enquiry. The enquiry was duly held in accordance with law. There was no illegality and/or procedural irregularity. There is no allegation of any such ===================================================================== W.P.(C) No.15819/2016 Page 5 of 6 infirmity in the decision-making process, that calls for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 13. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. INDIRA BANERJEE, J ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J February 16, 2017/ n ===================================================================== W.P.(C) No.15819/2016 Page 6 of 6