Delhi High Court
Bhagat Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on: February 16, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 15819/2006
BHAGAT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ...... 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, J
1. 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
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
Shri Bhagat Singh while functioning as
commandant 66th Bn.CRPF at ITI complex, Patti,
Amritsar (Punjab) during the period 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
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
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. Lalit Lama 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. His conduct was therefore
unbecoming of a Government servant thereby
violating the provisions of rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS
(Conduct) rules, 1964."
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
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
against the petitioner under section 377/506 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 377/506 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
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
