PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing or order dated 31.03.2009 pertaining to award of penalty of compulsory retirement and for reinstatement in services with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner was initially joined in services in the year 1971 as constable and by virtue of his merit and sincerity, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant in the year 2005. The petitioner while posted as Assistant Commandant as the head of the Unit in Lilabari Airport, North Lakhimpur in the State of Assam, a complaint was lodged by one lady constable, namely, Sarita Das alleging molestation committed by the petitioner upon her. After receipt of said complaint, an explanation was called for from the petitioner, to which, petitioner replied denying the allegation levelled against him. It has been submitted that thereafter, the disciplinary authority decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner was asked to appear before the enquiry committee without serving memo of charge but with demur the petitioner appeared before the enquiry committee, where imputation of charge was read out, to which, the petitioner denied. In the enquiry several witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution as well as on behalf of defence. Thereafter, the enquiry committee submitted its report, which was served upon the petitioner, to submit his representation, to which the petitioner replied. But, all of a sudden, vide order dated 31.03.2009, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement basing on the opinion of the U.P.S.C.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the findings of the enquiry officer runs contrary to point no. 13 of the enquiry report, therefore, there is no grain of truth on the allegation levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner became the victim of conspiracy being hatched by disgruntled employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is brought on record that the petitioner has received a call from the complainant at night and out of compassion and magnanimity, the petitioner went to the house of the complainant though at the dead of the night but with a view to see her ailing son. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that medical report also suggests that no act of molestation has been committed upon the petitioner as alleged by complainant, which also finds mention in the enquiry report. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that U.P.S.C has got no jurisdiction to advise for imposing any punishment upon the petitioner but in a highly arbitrary manner, the disciplinary authority has applied its mind with respect to quantum of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that admittedly no memo of charge was served upon the petitioner, which is against the dictum of the petitioner as held in the case of Vishaka & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors as reported in AIR 1997 SC 3011.;