Mumbai: A 32-year-old CISF police were dismissed from the service in April 2018 after his arrest in the case of Pocso because the alleged sexual striker was a four-year-old child, restored by the Bombay High Court on Friday.
His lawyer said the fir it was Mala Fide and no discipline investigation carried out before stopping it.
HC Judgment by PB Varale Judicial Bench and Justice and Bohon said, “Disstriting from services is the hardest punishment and it is similar to the economic death penalty for an employee.
Therefore, a more objective approach is needed to be adopted by the disciplinary authority when interspersed with investigations In fact , it can be said to be enough to remove disciplinary questions.
“The police are presented with the command of the dismissal when you hold you.
He has come out with a guarantee since then.
The department has requested the CISF rules that allow not to hold an investigation.
The Authority of the CISF Discipline has decided that it is not practical to conduct disciplinary investigations after considering that “it can hurt the centiments and emotions of the local population and fellow members of the forces” and “produce victims as witnesses of prosecutors in disciplinary investigations in disciplinary investigations inappropriate.
The victim cannot return to trauma Cross examination “.
It also said the police had been detained and will be detained for a long time and have “committed a crime crime”.
The bench, after hearing Pottable lawyers Rajeev Kumar and Ashok Shetty for CISF, canceled the dismissal command and returned it in service “with all the benefits”.
Kumar said “Fide Mala ” in part of a commander assistant, who was suspected of being” angry with the Petitioner (Constable) “, Writ was great because the suspension order was continued before the crime and medical registration of the child’s report did not show the alleged injury to the section – his personal part.
HC, though, explained that the CISF was not prevented from starting the department’s investigation into it or even suspended after recovery, during the ownership of disciplinary demand in accordance with the law.
HC said, “Considering the facts and the overall state of this case, the command that was revealed could not be maintained .
“FIR was put forward in March 2018.
The initial question was carried out and on April 4, he was dismissed.