M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the order of dismissal from the Service pursuant to a departmental proceeding which was conducted ex -parte. Petitioner was constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. In 1986 he was charge -sheeted and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. One of the major charge was that he tried to outrage the modesty of a woman on the relevant date and thereby committed gross misconduct. It was also alleged that petitioner refused to accept official documents i.e. movement order and railway warrant when the same were being served on him, which amounts to disobedience of lawful order within the meaning of C.I.S.F. Act, 1968. During the departmental proceeding petitioner was posted in a different place. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted his report holding that the charges have been proved. On the basis of the said report the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order of dismissal which was affirmed in appeal. It is worth to mention here that simultaneously F.I.R. was also lodged and a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner.
(3.) THE relevant portion of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is worth to be quoted herein below : "I have carefully gone through the case file and connected records the enquiry officer had submitted his findings based on the evidence adduced during enquiry. The prosecution witnesses posted out from the unit were called by the enquiry officer and their statements were recorded, whereas the charged member refused to receive the enquiry notice and failed to attend enquiry. Further I find that PW -V const. member did not submit any application earlier for change of enquiry officer whereas on receipt of copy of enquiry report, he represented for change of enquiry officer which is not acceptable. Due to demise of Smt. Shanti Devi, her statement was not recorded by the enquiry officer. However, in the absence of statement of the victim woman, the statement given before the Police Officer in F.I.R. the sequence of commission of offence committed by the charged member has been proved. As regards charge no. II, the statement of PWs -VII, VIII and IX have clearly established the fact that the charged member refused to accept the official documents when the same was being served to him on 25.5.93. Hence the charge No. II is also proved.";