G.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) A written complaint was lodged by Smt. Manju Das, wife of Sri Fatik Das, on 24 May, 2000, in the Court of the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, registered as M.P. Case No. 99 of 2000, alleging that on 5 May, 2000 at about 18.30 hrs. the complainant was waylaid by the four accused persons including the writ -petitioner named therein, all belonging to the Central Industrial Security Force. The accused writ petitioner allegedly caught hold of the tuft of hair of the complainant, the accused Gokbi and Binay Kumar allegedly pulled her saree and the accused Sharma allegedly pressed her breasts while all of them in a chorus allegedly continued to abuse her in a filthy language. On 24 May, 2000 itself the learned Magistrate directed an enquiry after registration of a criminal case. An FIR on that basis was recorded by the police on 31 May, 2000 under Ss. 342/504/354/376 read with Sec. 511 of the Indian Penal Code. On 15 October, 2007 a charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner which reads as follows: That the said No. 733220027 Inspector/ Exe B.K. Malla of CISF Unit FBP Farrakka, while performing duty at CISF Unit MAMC Durgapur allegedly involved in a case of moral turpitude in that on 5 May 2000 at about 18.30 hrs/he along with 3 other CISF personnel namely No. 904338165 HC/ Dvr J.P. Sharma No. 892292903 Constable Bogai and No. 904470918 Constable Vinay Kumar all formerly of CISF Unit MAMC Durgapur restrained Smt. Manju Das, maidservant, Sri Fatik Das, resident of Jantantra Colony, P.S. NTSPS, Durgapur in front of quarter No. A/T -07.07 near to MC guest house in MAMC Township, while she was returning back to her house after performing her daily work from the quarter of Insp/Exe B.M. Das, of CISF Unit, MC Durgapur, misbehaved and abused her by uttering filthy languages with the intention to hurt her in a sexual way thereby tarnished the image of the force, which amounts to an act of gross misconduct, indiscipline and unbecoming of a member of Armed Force of the Union like CISF, Hence, the charge. The petitioner was directed to file his written statement within ten days after receipt of the charge -sheet. On 2 November, 2007 the petitioner replied contending - (a) that the memorandum of charge, issued after lapse of eight years, was liable to be quashed due to inordinate delay, since the authorities were, all along aware of the alleged misconduct and were therefore deemed to have condoned the same; (b) the departmental proceeding should be kept in abeyance until the criminal proceedings were concluded; and (c) that documents indicated therein should be furnished for preparing the defence.
(2.) On 22 November, 2007 the petitioner at the preliminary hearing pleaded not guilty and wanted to furnish his statement in writing. On 7 December, 2007 the present writ petition was filed praying principally the following reliefs: (a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith quash and set aside the purported proceedings and the purported memorandum of charges, dated 15 October, 2007, being Annexure P6. (b) A writ of or in nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents to proceed further in the matter. (c) A writ of or in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to produce or cause of to be produced all relevant documents and papers in connection with the proceeding in general and the memorandum of charges, dated 15 October, 2007, in particular.
(3.) On 12 December, 2007 the authorities were granted liberty by this Court to proceed with the matter after disposing of the pending representation of the writ Petitioner. The proceeding have now been concluded but the final order has not as yet been published. In those circumstances an early hearing of the writ Petitioner was prayed for and the same was accordingly taken up for hearing.;