9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of misconduct by the respondent. 2. Procedural fairness in the Departmental Enquiry. 3. Evaluation of evidence and credibility of witnesses. 4. Jurisdiction and scope of High Court's review. Summary: 1. Allegation of Misconduct by the Respondent: The respondent, a Police Inspector, was accused of visiting the hutment of Banubi w/o Babu Sheikh on 13th November 1965, in uniform, and attempting to have sexual intercourse with her by force. When she resisted and raised a hue and cry, her husband and neighbors gathered, prompting the respondent to call for police aid. The respondent was charge-sheeted for perverse conduct on two grounds: attempting to have illicit intercourse and preparing false documents to cover up the incident. 2. Procedural Fairness in the Departmental Enquiry: The Departmental Enquiry, conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Thana, concluded with both charges being proved, leading to the respondent's dismissal. The respondent's appeal resulted in the punishment being reduced to removal from service. However, the High Court quashed the removal order, citing that the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges due to the non-supply of certain important documents. 3. Evaluation of Evidence and Credibility of Witnesses: The Inquiry Officer found no reason for Banubi to falsely implicate the respondent, noting that she would be slow to falsely accuse a police officer. The evidence showed that the police jeep was not available for the respondent's use until after the alleged incident, contradicting his defense of conducting a prohibition raid. The Inquiry Officer upheld Banubi's version, concluding that the panchnama and Station Diary entries were fabricated to cover the respondent's misdeed. The High Court's emphasis on the non-supply of original notebooks and the logbook was deemed misplaced, as sufficient evidence supported the finding of guilt. 4. Jurisdiction and Scope of High Court's Review: The High Court erred in reappraising the evidence as if it were a court of appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and protection under the law. The corroborated evidence of Banubi, her husband, and the police party supported the charges against the respondent. The High Court's conclusion that Banubi's testimony was unreliable due to her reputation was incorrect. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the appellate authority's order of removal from service. The respondent's reinstatement, if any, pursuant to the High Court's order, would not require a refund of salary and allowances for actual duty rendered. The appeal was allowed with costs.
|
