HC: Nothing wrong in Summary Dismissal of CISF Constable accused of Rape, Read Judgement

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal of eight CISF officers for allegedly blackmailing and repeatedly raping the wife of another officer despite them being acquitted in criminal case.

The Division Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J.M. Khazi rejected the appeals by the officer calling the case 'rarest of rare' and considering the importance of discipline and moral while being part of the force.

Brief Facts of the Case

After the alleged incident of blackmail and sexual harrassment happened, on receipt of the complaint, CISF conducted a preliminary enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority, by an order inter alia held that in an armed police force like CISF, the discipline and morale are of paramount importance.

It was further held that in the facts of the case, an enquiry into the incident is not reasonably practicable as it would have adverse ramification on the discipline of the force in general. Therefore, the requirement of holding an enquiry was dispensed with in exercise of powers under Rule 39(ii) of the CISF Rules, 2001 and under clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalties of dismissal from 8 service on the appellants. The appellants filed an appeal under Rule 46 of CISF Rules which was also dismissed.

The Counsel for the appellant submitted that decision to dispense with the regular enquiry as provided under Rule 36 cannot be taken by the disciplinary authority at the time of passing the order of punishment in view of Rule 36(2A) of the Rules. It was further submitted that the authority is bound by principles of natural justice before taking a decision to dispense with the regular enquiry. It was urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for dismissal of services of the appellants as they have already been acquitted in a criminal case. It was also urged that from the statement of the complainant recorded in the criminal case it was evident that she was a consenting party to the alleged incident. It was being argued that mere on the basis of suspicion penalty of dismissal from service cannot be imposed on the appellant.

Reliance was placed on Capt.M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & ANR, 1999 Latest Caselaw 108 SC.

On the other hand, learned ASGI for respondents submitted that after receipt of the complaint, the same was meticulously examined. The disciplinary authority visited the place of incident and in the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly taken a decision to dispense with the disciplinary enquiry. It was pointed out that valid and cogent reasons have been assigned by the disciplinary authority for dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry.

High Court's Observation

The Court at the outset analysed Rule 9 of CISF Rules, 2001 which states that the disciplinary authority for reasons to be recorded by it in writing has to be satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to go in an enquiry in the manner prescribed under the Rules. It was also pertinent to note that the aforesaid provision is in pari materia with Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.

Referrence was made to Union of India & ANR Vs. Tulsiram Patel & Ors, 1985 Latest Caselaw 156 SC wherein while dealing with Article 311(2)(b), the Apex Court held that condition precedent for application of clause (b) in Article 311(2) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that it is not 'reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry' as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

It was held that the issue whether it was practicable to hold an enquiry or not, must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so and same has to be assessed with reference to opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. It was further being held that disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with an enquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motive.

The Court further mentioned Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, 2009 Latest Caselaw 886 SC wherein it was held that when the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and it is not outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer.

Citing Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad & Ors Vs. A. Prahalada Rao & ANR, 2000 Latest Caselaw 523 SC, it was stated that Court are not ought to lightly presume abuse or misuse of power and will make allowance of the fact that the disciplinary authority is the best judge of the situation.

In view of the above, the Court stated that the disciplinary authority rightly held that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry.

"The disciplinary authority has rightly held that if a regular enquiry would have been held, the same would have spread the news of heinous incidents committed in the premises of CISF when the complainant's husband was away for duty. It would have caused serious psychological impact and insecurity in the minds of personnel who have left their family on campus and holding of departmental enquiry would have adverse ramification and administrative difficulties while deploying the personnel outside the area of premises. Thus, the disciplinary authority has recorded the satisfaction on the objective facts and the decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry is neither outcome of whim or caprice of the disciplinary authority nor is malafide."

Noting that Court can't sit in appeal of the decision by Discipline Authority, the Court refused to interfere.

"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 leveled against the appellants are proved."

As far as the acquittal of the appellants in the Criminal Case was concerned, the Court ruled that the same was of no assistance to them citing Capt.M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & ANR, 1999 Latest Caselaw 108 SC wherein it has been held that acquittal in the course of criminal trial cannot operate ipso facto as a ground for vitiating the finding of misconduct which has been arrived at during the course of disciplinary proceeding.

Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :