R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEAD the parties finally.
(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the order of his dismissal passed in the departmental proceedings by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority being orders dated 20.10.1995 (Annexure -1), 2.7.1996 (Annexure -2) and 12.12.1997 (Annexure -3). The petitioner was charged of escaping from his duty from 7.30 p.m. on 2.6.1989 without permission. The further charge was that about 30 -35 villagers brought the petitioner in drunken condition at 1 a.m. in the same night total that petitioner trespassed into the house of Hurni Devi and caught her hand with bad intention, due to which she awoke and raised alarm. On the fardbeyan of Hurni Devi, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 61/1989, dated 3.6.1989 was registered under Section 448/354, IPC, in which charge -sheet was submitted. On notice, petitioner filed his show cause. The charges were of dereliction of duty and moral turpitude, due to which the image of police department was tarnished. On petitioners request, the said departmental proceeding No. 32/1989 was stayed in May, 1992 by the Superintendent of Police till disposal of the criminal case. Petitioner was acquitted in the said Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 61/1989 by the judgment dated 19.9.1992. But he produced a copy of the judgment before the police only on 26.8.1993 and prayed for exonerating him in the departmental proceeding. In the departmental proceeding, six witnesses were examined including the prosecutrix -Hurni Devi but petitioner did not cross -examine her. Hence she was discharged. Petitioner was found guilty by the enquiry officer. The report of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority. A second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. After considering the same, petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 20.10.1995. Petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 2.7.1996. Petitioner filed revision. The revisional authority after considering the points raised by the petitioner and reply given by the department, dismissed the revision petition by order dated 12.12.1997.
(3.) PETITIONERS defence was that on 2.6.1989, he went to attend the call of nature after informing one Jamadar. While returning, he found 7 -8 persons were planning to commit crime. Petitioner challenged them. They caught the petitioner and poured liquor forcefully in his mouth and brought him at the police guard at about 1 a.m. in the night. The entire story was made with the connivance of the lady of easy virtue. Thus, practically he admitted the charges.;