The tribunal, after hearing the arguments, on Tuesday observed that “…the applicants were involved in a criminal case, in which they have been discharged based on benefit of doubt only and not on merits…” (Representational Image)
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed review petitions of four former constables of Chandigarh Police, who were accused of rape and molestation, seeking to be reinstated on the grounds that they were acquitted in the case by a district court.
The application of a fifth former constable, Jagtar Singh, is under consideration by the police department on the directions of the tribunal. All five, including Himmat Singh, Akshay Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Anil Kumar, were acquitted of rape and molestation of a minor girl at Khuda Lahora in November 2014 by the court of additional district and sessions judge.
A similar plea of the four constables had initially been dismissed by a common order on December 16, 2016, after which the applicants approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which disposed of the application on January 31, 2017. It permitted the applicants to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a review petition in CAT again.
The applicants then filed four review applications considering their persistent plea that they had some new grounds to raise on the basis of some information gathered under the Right to Information Act, 2005, that the order of discharge from service was actually based on an incident, upon which “there was no independent application of mind by the Chandigarh Police”.
The applicants, in the review petition, stated that they have been discharged from service in exercise of power under rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, by the department, following which they had moved representation for reinstatement in service, which was rejected, though they had been acquitted in the criminal case. The department rejected their representation on the grounds that there was no provision for considering a representation after discharge of an employee from service in exercise of power under rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, read the petition. The criminal case was decided by the district court on November 11, 2014, when they were acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt, but they were discharged from the service without holding an inquiry, added the review petition.
The Chandigarh Police opposed the claim by submitting that the applicants have tried to mislead this tribunal by distorting the facts and have not disclosed that their acquittal has been done on the basis of benefit of doubt only.
It was also submitted that the Appointing Authority discharged the applicants from service, by invoking rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, after satisfying itself that they were not likely to prove efficient police officers.
The tribunal, after hearing the arguments, on Tuesday observed that “…the applicants were involved in a criminal case, in which they have been discharged based on benefit of doubt only and not on merits…”
A perusal of the records in the matter show that the competent authority has formed an opinion that it was a desperate act by the applicants and that they are danger to the safety and security of general public and their continuance in the police force would cause irreparable loss to the functioning and credibility of the Chandigarh Police.
“Their act is most reprehensible and shameful, which makes them undesirable to be retained in police force in public interest.” The tribunal bench stated that the order of discharge is not founded on the criminal case alone, initiated against the applicants. “The motive may have been influenced by the act and conduct of the applicants in the criminal case to form an opinion by the competent authority…”