Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey, who was working as a constable with the CISF, was posted at the Greenbelt Area of the IPCL Township, Vadodara, Gujarat, where he was charge-sheeted vide memorandum dated 28.10.2001 on allegations of misconduct, which allegations we shall refer to in some detail subsequently.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/inherent-jurisdiction-and-invalid-decree-a-case-summary/
Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey had preferred an appeal that was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 08.05.2002. In his examination, the complainant has narrated the aforesaid story, but in the cross examination, he had admitted that the petitioner has returned the watch and he has got his article back and he does not want to take any action against the petitioner.
In respect of the said allegation also, the evidence on record clearly reveals that watch was already returned and, therefore, even the complainant has given in writing to the official of CISF that his watch is already returned by the present petitioner and, therefore, he does not want to take any action against him and he withdrew the complaint.” In our opinion the reasoning given by the High Court is faulty on both facts and law.
Chaudhry and his fiancée had passed through the area on motorcycle and had stopped in the corner, which is when Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey had come forward and had questioned them. Chaudhry had informed Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey that the girl with him was his fiancée, and that they had come there to play Garba.
Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey told Mahesh B.
Then Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey had insisted that Mahesh B. Chaudhry had told Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey that he has a watch which, in the circumstances, he was forced to hand over to Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey. Initially, Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey denied having taken the watch. After some time, Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey had asked Mahesh B. Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey came back and returned the watch to Mahesh B. Choudhry had identified Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey as the person who had harassed and stalked them, stated that he wanted to spend time with his fiancée and, upon refusal had asked Mahesh B. Chaudhry had returned to the CISF Office and had informed the officers that Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey had returned the watch.
Chaudhry along with Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey had gone to Undera Chowk.
We would not read her statement as exonerating, or even contradicting to the version given by Mahesh B. Abdul Ghani had also confirmed that, on being further questioned by the Company Commander, Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey had accepted that he had asked for the watch from Mahesh B.
On the question of withdrawal of the complaint, he elaborated that Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey had returned the watch and thereupon, Mahesh B. Chaudhry on the intervening night of 26.10.2001 and 27.10.2001, which was returned after Mahesh B. It would have been traumatic and agonising for her to narrate the incident before the officers and that too in the presence of Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey. The writ court, when disciplinary action is challenged, is primarily concerned with examination of the decision making process, which requires satisfaction that the competent authorities have held inquiry as per the prescribed procedure, and have duly applied their mind to the evidence and material placed on record, without extraneous matters being given undue consideration, and the relevant factors have been cogitated. Accordingly, Special Civil Application
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/conviction-upheld-for-murder-and-concealment-of-body/
No 13718 of 2004 filed by Respondent No 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey before the High Court will be treated as dismissed.
Case Title: CISF Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY (2022 INSC 1292)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008671-008671 / 2015
