Kolkata: Being a member of a disciplined force, the accused was expected to lead a life ensuring the image of the force was not tarnished, the Calcutta HC held while not interfering with the enquiry report in a gang-rape case implicating an RPF constable, who died during the case proceedings.
"It is to be kept in mind that the writ petitioner/delinquent during his lifetime was a member of a disciplined force and therefore he was expected to lead a life in such a manner which must not tarnish the image and reputation of the force in which he was employed. We are convinced that no materials could be placed before us that the finding of the enquiry authority is solely based on extraneous evidence," the division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held.
The RPF constable's involvement in a gang rape was alleged on Aug 20, 2000 and a charge sheet was submitted on Aug 28, 2000.
Challenging the charge sheet, the RPF constable approached the high court and, on May 18, 2010, the charge sheet was quashed. But the central govt was allowed to proceed de-novo on the basis of the same charge sheet. On July 22, 2013, the authorities issued a memorandum containing the charges and statement of allegation against the accused, which was identical to the charge sheet. After the completion of enquiry proceedings, the authority held that the charges against the accused were proved, and on Oct 12, 2013, they ordered his dismissal from service. This was appealed against by the accused but with no success as the revisional authority on Nov 21, 2014, rejected the prayer.
He passed away during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal heirs approached the court against the enquiry report. The counsel for the substituted petitioners argued the authority came to the conclusion on the basis of documents not provided to the accused when the memorandum was issued. It was stated that due to this, the accused suffered "serious prejudice". It was further argued that the authority was supposed to act as "an adjudicator and not as a prosecutor".
Meanwhile, advocate for the authorities Arijit Majumder said the single bench of HC had strong reasons for not ignoring the documents relating to the criminal trial in which the accused was found guilty under sections 376 (2) (g) and 511 of IPC. He and another colleague were awarded seven years of rigorous imprisonment in 2005.
Stay updated with the latest news on Times of India. Don't miss daily games like Crossword, Sudoku, and Mini Crossword.