Sachin Kondiram Atole vs Principal Chief Security ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2482 Bom

                                                                    13.2206.21-wp.docx


         Digitally               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         signed by
         BASAVRAJ                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
GURAPPA PATIL
PATIL    Date:
         2023.03.16
                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 2206 OF 2021
         18:02:21
         +0530
                      Sachin Kondiram Atole                          ..... Petitioner

                            Vs.

                      Principal Chief Security
                      Commissioner & Ors.                            ..... Respondents


                      Mr. Sushant S. Prabhune a/w. Ratan Upadhyay for the Petitioner
                      Mrs. Smita Thakur I/b. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents


                                             CORAM:      S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                         SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : MARCH 15, 2023

ORAL ORDER (PER : ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. Rule.

Rule is made returnable forthwith.

By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. The Petitioner is employed with the Railway Protection Force

as a Constable since 2008. A criminal case was registered against

the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 304-B, 498-

A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was

taken in custody on 21st April 2019 and was released on bail on or

about 7th May 2019. A departmental inquiry was conducted against

the Petitioner on the following charges:

                      Basavraj                                                           1/5
                                             13.2206.21-wp.docx

Shri Sachin Atole Constable RPF Thana Daund while working as constable at RPF Thana Daund has committed serious misconduct in that he was arrested by Baramati Rural Police vide Cr.No.361/2019 u/s.306, 304(B), 498(A) 34 IPC dated 21.04.2019 for death of his wife during treatment. Shri Sachin Atawale was arrested on the complaint of his father-in-law. He was released on bail by the Hon'ble Session Court Baramati on 07.05.2019. The matter is under investigation with Baramati Police station.

Thus he acted in a manner not befitting to the member of the disciplined Force. By this act of commission and omission tarnished the image of the disciplined Force. Thereby he failed to perform his duties with due promptitude and involved in criminal conspiracy which bring discredit to the reputation of the Force. The said act on the part of Shri Sachin Atole Constable RPF Thana Daund clearly establishes his serious misconduct and discreditable conduct. Thereby he violated rule No.146.2(i) 146.3(i) 146.4 147(i)(ii)(iii) of RPF Rule 1987."

3. The Petitioner was found guilty in the said departmental

inquiry. Penalty of compulsory retirement is imposed on him.

Appeal and Revision filed by the Petitioner are dismissed. Aggrieved

thereby, the present Writ Petition.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The

learned Counsel submits that only on the basis of a criminal case

filed against the Petitioner the departmental inquiry was conducted

and the Petitioner is compulsorily retired. According to the learned

Counsel, the reason for compulsorily retiring the Petitioner is not

borne out from the evidence and the charge on record.

Basavraj                                                         2/5
                                              13.2206.21-wp.docx

5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the

father-in-law of the Petitioner deposed before the Inquiry Officer

about the illegal acts committed by the Petitioner, such as

demanding dowry and harassing the deceased wife of the Petitioner.

This was considered by the Inquiry Officer so also the Disciplinary,

Appellate and Revisional Authority. The Petitioner is guilty of

serious misconduct. He was also arrested by the Police Authority

and was behind the bars for more than 15 days. The Petitioner has

acted in the manner not befitting to the member of a disciplined

Force. By this act of commission and omission, he has tarnished the

image of a disciplined Force and thereby failed to perform his duties

with promptitude. He is involved in criminal conspiracy and caused

disrespect to the reputation of the force. The decision has been

rightly taken.

6. We have considered the submissions.

7. On perusal of the charge, it appears that the only charge is on

the basis of a criminal case filed against the Petitioner. The

Petitioner is not convicted in the criminal case. If the Petitioner

would have been convicted, then the same would have been different

matter altogether. The criminal case is still pending. The charge

against the Petitioner was not that he abetted the crime and/or

Basavraj 3/5 13.2206.21-wp.docx

harassed his wife. No such charge is framed. Only because a

criminal case is registered, Respondent No.4 ought not to have

imposed punishment upon the Petitioner.

8. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent on

the judgment of Learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the

case of S. Paramasivan Vs. Director General of Police and Ors.

2020 SCC OnLine Mad 27954 would not enure to the benefit of the

Respondents. In the said case, the allegations were that the

Petitioner therein had illicit intimacy with another married woman

and for the further act of throttling his wife's neck. The wife in that

case deposed before the Inquiry Committee. It is on the basis of the

said evidence, action was taken.

9. In the present case, there was no charge against the Petitioner

of abetting suicide of his wife and/or demanding dowry.

10. In light of the above, the impugned order compulsorily retiring

the Petitioner from service is quashed and set aside.

11. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not worked during the

intervening period. We are not inclined to grant him back wages.

However, the Petitioner will be entitled to continuity in service.

Basavraj                                                           4/5
                                              13.2206.21-wp.docx


12.   The Respondents     shall reinstate the Petitioner within four

weeks from today.

13. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs.

14. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)                     (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Basavraj                                                          5/5