Jass Kaur Bindra
A plea was filed by a police officer who was brushed off from his job, before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the plea on the grounds that the police officer raped a minor girl and raping is as atrocious as terrorism or sedition.
The contention which was raised by the police officer was that the authorities which declared the charges of rape over the police officer did not hold any enquiry into the matter before his dismissal.
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s chairperson, Justice Mridula Bhatkar and vice-chairperson Pravin Dixit heard the case.
Bhatkar stated that, “The victim should not be subjected to ‘horrifying’ cross examination multiple times, that is before the enquiry panel and also the criminal court which would deal with the rape trial”.
The police officer was booked for rape along with the charges which were made under the POSCO (Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences) Act.
On the grounds of these charges which were made against the sub-inspector of police he was dismissed from his post and job.
Vishwas Nagre Patil who is currently the Joint Commissioner of Police in maintenance of law and order and was the Special Inspector General of Police that time, dismissed the sub-inspector of police from his job.
As per the Bombay Police Act enquiry must be there before dismissing any police officer but in the present case Mr Patil did not hold any enquiry nor did he heard the contentions which were raised by sub-police inspector.
The Sub-Inspector of police stated, “Such an enquiry can only be dispensed if there are allegations of terrorism or sedition.”
The official stated, “True, the offence is neither seditious nor a terrorist act. However, it does not mean the offence is not equally grave and heinous.”
Hearing the contentions, the honourable Bench stated, “Basically in the offence against the women the authority of judicial forum should need to have victim/women centric approach. What the victim will go through during the enquiry if it is conducted and what is the effect and impact of such enquiry on the victim is the most important material point.”
It was further added by the Bench that, “It is irrelevant to consider how grave the offences is, but the mental condition and the trauma of the victim will turn more terrible if she is is required to be go through to the same contentions and arguments repeatedly, firstly at the time of recording FIR, secondly at the time of enquiry, and thirdly before the court.”
