ACQUITTAL WON'T END EMPLOYER'S ACTION.

Stating that no public servant shall behave in a manner which is derogatory to the prestige of the government, the Telangana High Court upheld the decision of the police to take departmental disciplinary action against a police constable, even after he was acquitted of criminal charges by the Criminal Court. A division Bench of the High Court was dealing with a petition filed by the Commandant of the Special Armed Reserve Central Police Lines (SARCPL) seeking to set aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal, which had given relief to police constable M. Ramesh. The Court said that the acquittal of criminal charges on account of witnesses turning hostile cannot be a ground to interfere with the disciplinary action passed in departmental proceedings. Ramesh was suspended for his alleged involvement in a criminal case. Along with his nephew, he had allegedly intercepted the vehicle of one D. Dayanand and robbed Rs. 9,700/-, a gold ring and a cell phone in April 2010. Senior officials found gross misconduct with Ramesh falsely reporting sick on May 2010 to cover up his involvement in the crime and his arrest by the civil police. 

Initiating departmental disciplinary action, the officials imposed the penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay for two stages, for two years, with a cumulative effect on future increments and pension. A criminal court acquitted him as the complainant and witnesses turned hostile. With disciplinary proceedings still under implementation by the department, Ramesh approached the Administrative Tribunal to revoke these charges. He succeeded with the tribunal setting aside the proceedings issued by the department against him. Aggrieved by the tribunal order, the police approached the High Court. The Court said he did not get 'an honourable' acquittal and upheld the disciplinary proceedings against the constable.

[Courtesy: Deccan Chronicle dated 12th April, 2019 (Friday)].

-Challapalli Srinivas Chakravarthy, 12th April, 2019, Friday-

-----------------------------------------------------------------

SEX TO MARRY IS RAPE: SUPREME COURT.

In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has held that a person having sex with a woman on the promise of marrying her will be of no consequence as it is obtained by fraud. Giving this ruling, a Bench of Justices L. Nagewara Rao and M.R. Shah said this kind of consent obtained by the accused cannot be said to be of any consent becuase she was under the misconception to marry her, therefore, she submitted to sexual intercourse with him. This kind of consent taken by the accused with clear intention not to fulfil the promise and persuading the girl to believe that he is going to marry her and obtained her consent for the sexual intercourse under total misconception cannot be treated as consent. 

Writing the judgment, Justice Shah said that such incidents are on the increase now-a-days and that these are offences against society. "Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in a society, an assault on the body, mind and privacy of the victim. As observed by this Court in a catena of decisions, while a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female", the Supreme Court observed. The Bench, slapping a seven-year imprisonment on the appellant doctor Anurag Soni, said rape reduces a woman to an animal as it shakes the very core of her life. "By no means can a rape victim be called an accomplice. Rape leaves a permanent scar on the life of the victim. Rape is a crime against the entire society and violates the human rights of the victim. Being the most hated crime, rape is tantamount to a serious blow to the supreme honour of a woman, and offends both her seteem and dignity", the Court said.

[Courtesy Deccan Chronicle dated 12th April, 2019 (Friday)].

-Challapalli Srinivas Chakravarthy, 12th April, 2019 (Friday)- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------