Decided on March 21,2013

Krishan Kant Anand Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


- (1.) Petitioner, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is assailing the order dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 3 Chief General Manager (P) whereby petitioner was removed from service as well as order dated 09.03.2011 (Annexure no. 14 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2 whereby appeal against the order dated 14.10.2010 was dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner was working as Senior Engineer at Koteshwar Hydro Electric Project of THDC; an FIR was got registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 373, 376 IPC and under Section 6 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for brevity "the Act") with police station Rishikesh, District Dehradun alleging that petitioner was found involved in obscene dance in room No. 107 of Hotel Uttaranchal, situated in Rishikesh, Dehradun and was arrested by the police; petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 05.08.2003 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition); suspension order was revoked vide order dated 22.03.2005 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) stating that revocation of suspension order is being made without prejudice to the proceedings pending in the court of law; the revocation order was subject to review or revision in accordance with the outcome of the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the court of law. After revocation of suspension order, petitioner raised claim for his due premonition; a memo of charges was served upon the petitioner vide memo dated 21.08.2008 (Annexure No. 4 to the petition) stating that involvement of petitioner in obscene dances with women, who were not the family members of the petitioner and registration of criminal case against him for the offences punishable under Section 373, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the Act, amounts to violation of provisions of Clause 5 (5), 5(17) and 5 (20) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Corporation. Further more, since the petitioner is guilty of the offence for involvement of moral turpitude, therefore, he has violated, Clause 5(17) and 5 (20) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules read with provisions of Rule 4 (i) & (iii) of the CDA Rules, 1990; before the Enquiry Officer, a copy of the FIR, registered against the petitioner, was produced; Enquiry Officer vide enquiry report dated 23.02.2010 found the charges proved against the petitioner; a copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner; having received the enquiry report, respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service; thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no. 2, which too, was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.03.2011 (annexure no. 14 to the petition). Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the present petition.
(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3, wherein, in a nutshell, it has been stated that action of the petitioner involving himself in obscene dance with women, who were not the members of his family, in a Hotel room and registration of FIR pursuant to the raid made by Rishikesh police and subsequent thereto, arrest of the petitioner and filing of charge-sheet by the police, would certainly amounts to moral turpitude and action of the petitioner was prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and the petitioner has made himself unbecoming of a public servant.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.