Regular Enquiry Not Practical, Will Affect Morale of Force: Karnataka HC Upholds Dismissal of CISF Constables Accused Of Rape By Another Constable’s Wife
Case: Vikas Verma & Others v. Union of India & Others
Coram: Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J M Khazi
Case No: WA 5651/2017
Court Observation: “There is ample evidence on record to prove the charges against the appellants. The issue of sufficiency of the evidence has not been raised by the appellants. The disciplinary as well as the appellate authority by taking into account the material available on record has held that the charges levelled against the appellants are proved…The incidents being rarest of the rare and considering the discipline and moral of the force, the disciplinary authority rightly held that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry. The disciplinary authority has recorded the satisfaction on the objective facts and the decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry is neither the outcome of whim or caprice of the disciplinary authority nor is malafide.”
“The incidents being rarest of the rare and considering the discipline and moral of the force, the disciplinary authority rightly held that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry. The disciplinary authority has recorded the satisfaction on the objective facts and the decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry is neither the outcome of whim or caprice of the disciplinary authority nor is malafide.”
“This court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by disciplinary authority to dispense with enquiry. Therefore, no case for interference with the decision to dispense with the regular enquiry is made out in exercise of powers of judicial review.”
“The disciplinary authority has invoked the power under Rule 39 of the Rules, which prescribes for a special procedure in certain cases and is a non obstante clause. Thus, the power under Rule 39 of the Rules can be invoked notwithstanding the power under Rule 36(2A) of the Rules, which deals with power to deal with complaint for sexual harassment. Such a complaint is required to be referred to the complaints committee.”
“In the instant case, the disciplinary authority as stated supra has invoked the power under Rule 39 of the Rules and invocation of the said Rule in the peculiar facts of the case has been held to be justified. Therefore, the contention that power under Rule 39 of the Rules cannot be exercised in view of Rule 36(2A) of the Rules is misconceived.”
“The same is also sans substance. In support of aforesaid submission, reference was made to proviso to Rule 39(iii), which envisages an opportunity of making a representation to an employee in case, the penalty is proposed to be imposed on conviction on a criminal charge. The aforesaid Rule has no application to the facts of the case and therefore, the contention raised in this regard does not deserve acceptance.”
Previous Posts
Bombay High Court Warns Principal Chief Commissioners Of Customs For Non-Representation In Cases
Intention Of Parties A Key Factor To Ascertain Benami Transactions: Kerala High Court
Gift Deed Not Effective When Possession Not Handed Over; Can Be Cancelled: Madras High Court
Supreme Court Bars Charging Compound Interest Or Penal Interest On Any Borrower During Loan Moratorium; Refuses Moratorium Extension Download Judgement
