Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioner was also deputed to undergo commando training; training in correct use of Arms; Maintenance and various functions and Q.R.T. training, which were completed by him successfully and thereafter, the petitioner was posted in the Airport Security Unit at Vizaq in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner had also undergone three months of "VIP Security Course" and was thereafter selected for three months of Commando Training at Barwah in Madhya Pradesh.

4. The petitioner contended that on the basis of his performances during the commando training, he was enlisted as a member of a group of 42 personnel for the purpose of being posted to the Indian Missions Abroad. After being posted on temporary duty at the office of DIG, CISF, Government Building Security, Jamnagar House, New Delhi, he was directed to join the post of security personnel at the Embassy of India at Kathmandu in Nepal for a period of two years. The petitioner had arrived at Kathmandu on 6th November, 2005 pursuant to his order of posting dated 20th October, 2005 and had assumed the charge of the post of Security Guard (SG) at the Embassy of India at Kathmandu in Nepal.

6. Since the misconduct of the petitioner was clearly established, as a measure of damage control and with a view to save the country from ensuing embarrassment, the officials of the Embassy of India at Kathmandu persuaded Ms. Hande Apaydin, not to file a criminal case against the petitioner on the basis of the assurance that action would be taken against the petitioner and consequently, a compromise note was also signed by Ms. Hande Apaydin. During the preliminary investigation conducted against the petitioner, it was found that the evidence on record clearly established the guilt on the part of the petitioner and in the circumstances it was alleged that the misconduct of the petitioner had not only tarnished the image of CISF and the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu but also the country as a whole. The petitioner was thereafter repatriated and was directed to report to the CISF 5th Res./BN Ghaziabad for the disciplinary proceedings by order dated 2nd march, 2008.

7. The respondents on taking into consideration that the incident had taken place at Kathmandu, Nepal and that Ms. Hande Apaydin (Turkish national), the victim and the complainant and the other relevant witnesses i.e. hotel employees, members of the Kathmandu police were not likely to come to India to tender their evidence in case of conducting a departmental inquiry; that there was the possibility of the petitioner terrorizing the witnesses if they came to India; that it would be an irritant and reminder of unpleasant incident to the victim and the other staff of the CISF and Indian Embassy; that there was ample evidence adduced during the preliminary enquiry which established the misconduct alleged against the petitioner; that the trial would attract worldwide media attention and that the regular inquiry would have had far reaching implications on the general discipline of the force, therefore, it was held that it would not be reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The respondents, therefore, dispensed with holding the regular inquiry by invoking the provisions of Rule 32(i) read with Rule 34 and Rule 39 (ii) of the CISF Rules, 2001 and awarded the penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 24th March, 2008.

11. The Revisional Authority also repelled the contention of the petitioner that he had every reason to presume that there may have been some other person who had committed the crime and that he was falsely implicated to bear the brunt of the unfortunate incident and that he has been dismissed from the service arbitrarily by taking shelter under the provisions which exempt due inquiry in certain cases.

12. The Revisional Authority had noted that from the record, it is evident that on 29th February, 2008 at about 2015 hours the petitioner was on deputation with the Indian Mission, stationed abroad at Kathmandu (Birganj, Nepal). He had gone out of the Embassy premises for the purchase of a recharge coupon for his cell phone after taking permission for about 5-10 minutes from Sh. Sardar Singh Badsera, AP & WO/CISF (Sub Inspector/Exe.). However, he did not return to the Embassy within the permitted period. Instead, he proceeded to the Hotel Radisson, Kathmandu and forcibly entered into room No.118 at about 2030 hours where Ms.Hande Apaydin (Turkish national) was staying by impersonating himself as a security guard of the hotel. He carried out an illegal search of the room and thereafter outraged the modesty of Ms. Hande Apaydin by touching her body parts with his hands despite strong protest by her. Ms. Hande Apaydin alerted the hotel staff who came to the room and nabbed the petitioner and handed him over to the Durbar Marg Police Station where the petitioner was detained from 0000 hours to 1930 hours on 1st March, 2008. On account of the diplomatic implications involved and sensitivity of the case, the officials of the Indian Embassy had persuaded Ms. Hande Apaydin not to file a criminal case and instead settle the matter by signing a compromise note which was also signed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the preliminary inquiry showed that the allegations against the petitioner were made out. The Revisional Authority after considering the pleas of the petitioner had held as under:-