2026:UHC:238-DB

Reserved

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 266 OF 2021

Deepali Sharma …..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & another ….Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned

Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.

Aditya Pratap Singh and Mr.

Shubhang Dobhal, learned

counsels.

Counsel for the High Court : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned

counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned

Standing Counsel.

Judgment Reserved on:10.10.2025

Judgment Delivered on:06.01.2026

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT :(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr. G. Narendar)

Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel

along with Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the High

Court and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for

the State of Uttarakhand.

2. This is not only a case of “no evidence”, but a case

of a, “carefully crafted edifice without a foundation”. It could

also be termed as “a mountain made out of a molehill”. The

2

petitioner has been charged with following misconduct. The

charges are extracted with the purpose.

“HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

NO. /UHC/XV-a-1/Admin/A/2018 Dated: August, 2018

To,

Smt. Deepali Sharma,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Hardwar.

(Under Suspension)

(Attached to District Pauri Garhwal)

Madam,

While you being posted at Haridwar as Civil Judge

(Senior Division), a complaint dated 10.01.2018 was received

against you. In the said complaint, it was alleged by the

complainant that you were abusing a minor girl child

physically, mentally and emotionally and you had kept her as a

maid servant in your house who was made to work whole day.

It was also alleged that the said girl was taken on exchange

from her parents, as you helped her father in some criminal

case. It was further alleged against you that the girl child was

living in a miserable state which is beyond words and she was

being beaten daily and kept starved for many days. It was also

alleged that there were scratches, hurt marks, blood and

bruises all over the body of the child. Her hair were pulled and

chopped off as a punishment so that she looks like retarded, a

bag of bones nearing death.

The said complaint was brought to the knowledge of

Hon’ble the Chief Justice and vide order dated 29.01.2018, My

Lord was pleased to direct the District Judge, Hardwar to visit

the spot and to verify the contents of said complaint and

further directed that if contents of the complaint are found

correct, to take necessary action in accordance with law.

The District Judge, Hardwar after visiting the spot,

verified the contents of the complaint, and accordingly,

submitted his report dated 30.01.2018. In the said Repot, it

has been mentioned that on 29.01.2018 at around 3:15 PM, he

alongwith Sri Kanwar Amninder Singh, police team led by Ms.

Rachita Juyal and Sri Ashok Sharma, Probation Officer at Child

Welfare Committee reached at your residence (residence no.

G-10, Judge’s Colony, Roshanabad, Hardwar). Two constables

3

in civil dress also accompanied with video cameras for proper

video recording.

It has further been mentioned in the said report that on

reaching your official residence, door bell was pressed and a

thin and frail girl came at the main gate. At that time the girl

was just wearing a black sleeve less frock till her knees and a

pyjami, which was above her ankles. The girl was not wearing

any woolen clothes or socks or cap or slippers. The girl child

was asked if you were at home then you should be called and

after 5-6 minutes you came and in your presence the child was

asked about her name, she informed that her name is Tanuja

@Tiruja Dani. The girl child was apparently examined by Ms.

Rachita Juyal and female Sub-Inspectors and female

constables and it was found that there were many injury marks

on her body and it was also found that there were apparently

fresh injuries also on her head. On being asked as to how she

got this injury on her head, she stated that she had fallen; but

the location of the injury was as such that these injuries cannot

be self inflicted.

It is mentioned in the report that you also started giving

your explanation that you used to take good care of the girl

and the girl child is studying in some school in class IX and her

books are also inside the house and that the girl child was

made to speak to her father at Haldwani just two days back

and her father was also offered some money if required. The

girl child was enquired about the details of parents and their

address.

It has further been mentioned in the report that while

the child was replying to the questions posed to her, you were

prompting the girl child to say nice things about you and when

questions were being asked to the girl child, you were trying to

give answers or put words in the mouth of the girl child. In the

report it is stated that the girl child was asked to show where

she sleeps. She took Ms. Rachita Juyal inside the house to

show where she sleeps. The girl child informed that she sleeps

on the floor near the dining table. On being asked about her

clothes, she took the team near the servant room and toilet

and 4-5 clothes were lying on the floor outside the servant

room in which there were two high neck cotton thin sweaters

and one red colour sweater.

It is mentioned in the report that you were continuously

interfering during questioning of the child and it was observed

that there is swelling on her feet and it appeared that there

4

was infection between her feet fingers and it was noted that

girl child is not being given proper and sufficient food.

It is further stated in the report that when the team was

rescuing the child, you objected the same and even demanded

the order of Hon’ble High Court be shown to her in this regard.

Inspect of your unwarranted objections the custody of the girl

child was taken and memo of recovery was prepared and girl

child was brought to the S.S.P. Haridwar.

It is further stated in the report that minor child

disclosed that she was working with you from last three years

and during these three years you used to beat the child with

sticks, metal objects and on one of the occasion you hit her on

head with brass statue. She also disclosed that on many

occasion no food was provided by you to the girl child because

of which on one of the days i.e. 28.01.2018 the girl child went

to the house of Mr. Kanwar Amninder Singh for food and she

requested Mr. Kanwar Amninder Singh not to tell you that she

came to his house for food as she was scared that you will beat

her. The girl child also disclosed that her father was sent to jail

in some criminal case in which you helped her in release of her

father because of this help her father gave the girl child to you.

It is further mentioned in the report that when police

had rescued the girl child from your house and was brought to

the S.S.P. Office; there you entered in the room where girl

Tanuja @Tiruja Dani was sitting and there you alleged that it

was a conspiracy by the High Court against you and that the

High Court deliberately wants to cause harm to your career;

you were asked to leave the room but you were repeatedly

levelled allegation against the High Court. It is also stated that

you were asked to sign the recovery memo but you refused to

sign.

In the report it is also stated that girl child was taken to

Mission Hospital (District Hospital) Haridwar for medical

examination, and on medical examination as many as 20

injuries were on the body of the girl Tanuja @Tiruja Dani.

Thereafter girl child was sent to Shri Ram Ashram, a registered

children Home at Haridwar. It is further stated in the report

that statements of the girl child, Mr. Kanwar Amninder Singh,

etc. were recorded by Mr. Varun Kumar, A.D.J. Haridwar. The

perusal of the statements of the rescued child and Sri Kanwar

Amninder Singh, 1

st

ADJ sufficiently shows that the rescued girl

child Tanjua @Tiruja Dani, aged 15 years (DoB: 10-01-2003),

was kept by you at your residence as domestic servant since

5

last 3 (three) years and the girl was doing all household work

in your residence and that the girl was being ill-treated,

beaten, starved by you. The injuries on the body of Tanuja

@Tiruja sufficiently and loudly speak about the beating, ill-

treatment and torture inflicted by you on the minor girl child.

The girl child was not being given any money for the work

being done by her.

The said repot dated 30.01.2018 was brought to the

knowledge of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble the Chief

Justice was pleased to place you under suspension with

immediate effect in contemplation of inquiry. Accordingly, a

charge-sheet is issued to you with following charges:

CHARGE No.1

It is alleged against you that while you being posted at

Haridwar as Civil Judge (Sr. Div,), you had kept a minor girl

child as a domestic servant at your official residence. It was

found that the girl in your residence; disclosed her name as

Tanuja @Tiruja Dani. The said girl child was apparently

examined by Ms. Rachita Juyal and female Sub-Inspectors and

female constables and it was found that there were many

injury marks on her body and it was also found that there were

apparently fresh injuries also on her head.

It is alleged against you that the said minor girl was

working with your from last three years and during these three

years you used to beat the child with sticks, metal objects and

on one of the occasion you hit her on head with brass statue.

She also disclosed that on many occasion no food was provided

by you to the girl child because of which on one of the days i.e.

28.01.2018 the girl child went to the house of Mr. Kanwar

Amninder Singh for food and she requested Mr. Kanwar

Amninder Singh not to tell you that she came to his house for

food as she was scare that you will beat her.

After recovery of the child, she was brought to S.S.P.

Office, Haridwar and from there she was taken to Mission

Hospital (District Hospital) Haridwar for medical examination,

and on medical examination as many as 20 injuries were found

on the body of girl Tanuja @Tiruja Dani. The perusal of the

statements of the rescued child, Sri Kanwar Amninder Singh,

1

st

ADJ and the medical examination sufficiently shows that the

rescued girl child Tanuja @Tiruja Dani, aged 15 years (DoB:

10-01-2003), was kept by you at your residence as domestic

servant since last 3 (three) years and the injuries on the body

of Tanuja @Tiruja Dani sufficiently and loudly speak about the

6

beating, ill-treatment and torture inflicted by you on the minor

girl child. The girl child was not being given any money for the

work being done by her.

Aforesaid acts of your amounts to grave misconduct and

by your aforesaid acts, you did not show required integrity and

devotion as was required from you being a Government

Servant/ Judicial Officer.

You are, therefore, guilty of grave misconduct and you

have violated Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2) of The Uttarakhand

Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 2002.

Following evidence shall be read against you in support

of the above said Charge no.1:-

(i) Complaint dated 10.01.2018.

(ii) Report dated 30.01.2018 of District Judge, Hardwar.

(iii) Fard Baramadgi dated 29.01.2018.

(iv) Medical report dated 29.01.2018.

(v) Statement of the girl child, namely, Tanuja @Tiruja

recorded by Sri Varun Kumar, 4

th

Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Hardwar.

(vi) Statement of Sri Kanwar Amninder Singh, 1

st

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hardwar recorded

by Sri Varun Kumar, 4

th

Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Hardwar.

(vii) Sri Rajendra Singh, District & Sessions Judge,

Hardwar.

(viii) Ms. Rachita Juyal, ASP, Hardwar.

(ix) Sri Ashok Sharma, Probation Officer, Hardwar.

(x) Dr. R.K. Singhal, Hap Milap Mission District Hospital,

Hardwar.

(xi) Any other witness, which may be necessary in

course of the Departmental Inquiry.

You are, therefore, required to submit your written

statement with regard to the above-mentioned Charge within

21 days from the date of issuance of charge-sheet.

In the written statement, it should be clearly stated as

to whether you admit or deny the charge. It also be mentioned

as to whether you want to cross-examine any of the witnesses

and whether you want to submit documentary or oral evidence

in support of your defence.

If, in the specified period, you either do not appear or do

not submit your written statement, then it shall be presumed

that you have nothing to say and disciplinary proceedings will

be proceeded against you ex parte.

7

By order of the Hon’ble Court

Registrar General

Enclosure(s): As above.”

3. The facts, in a nutshell, are that a complaint was

received on 10.01.2018. The complaint was by way of an

anonymous e-mail rendering the complaint an anonymous

complaint (later the sender has been identified because of the

efforts of the petitioner). The contents of the complaint are as

under:-

“Respected Sir,

This is to bring to your notice that civil judge Mrs. Deepali

Sharma, posted at Haridwar is grossly abusing a minor girl

(child) she has kept as a maid servant in her house both

physically, mentally and emotionally. This girl has been taken

in exchange for a favor from her parents who are in Haldwani

or somewhere there and who were litigants or so in Mrs

Deepali’s court. The girl child is in a miserable state which is

beyond words as she is being beaten daily and starved. She

has scratches, hurt marks, blood and bruises all over her face,

back of arms and body. The girl gets no food for days and is

without clothes. She is kept wearing a vest and cotton pajama

in severe winter of Haridwar. The entire day, the girl is made

to work and tortured. Her hair has also been pulled and

chopped off as a punishment so she looks retarded. The girl

now looks like a bag of bones nearing death. She begged me

for food and help. I called the child helpline number 1098

many times but they seem disinterested in the case. Please

rescue the girl child from the evil clutches of Mrs Deepali

Sharma and her mother and kindly rehabilitate the child with

her parents. Many people in Haridwar court are aware of the

situation but are very scared to make a complaint. It was my

duty as a human being to help save that child so I have taken

this initiative to bring the matter to your notice. I trust in God

that he will help save this poor child’s life through you.

Yours sincerely,

A well meaning Citizen”

8

4. On a plain reading of the above complaint, what

can be inferred is that;

(i) the petitioner has kept her as a maid servant;

(ii) the petitioner has been grossly abusing minor

girl;

(iii) the minor child has been abused physically,

mentally and emotionally;

(iv) the parents of the minor child were litigants and

the petitioner having favoured them in the litigation

pending before the petitioner, the minor child was

given in exchange;

(v) on 10.01.2018, the minor child approached the

complainant;

(vi) the minor is in a miserable state because she is

being beaten daily and starved;

(vii) the minor child has scratches, hurt marks,

blood and bruises all over her face, back of arms

and body;

(viii) the minor child is not fed for days together and

is without clothes;

(ix) the minor child was wearing a vest and cotton

pajama, though it was winter night;

(x) the minor child is made to work whole day and is

tortured;

9

(xi) her hair had been pulled and chopped off as

punishment, and hence, looks retarded;

(xii) the minor looks like a bag of bones nearing

death;

(xiii) the minor begged for food and help;

(xiv) the complainant called the Child Helpline

No.1098 many times, but they were disinterested in

the case;

(xv) the complainant prays that the minor child be

saved from the evil clutches of Mrs. Deepali Sharma

and her mother and rehabilitate the child with her

parents;

(xvi) the complainant states that many people in

Haridwar Court are aware about the situation, but

are scared to make a complaint;

(xvii) the complainant being a human being, thought

it his duty to take the initiative and bring the matter

into the notice of the Chief Justice, and;

(xviii) the complainant states that God will help and

save the poor minor child through the Hon’ble Chief

Justice.

5. What can be deduced from the above complaint is

that;

(i) the complainant was aware about the situation of the

minor as on 10.01.2018 itself;

10

(ii) that the complainant had given food on 10.01.2018

itself;

(iii) that the complainant had an opportunity to examine

the body of the minor child, as it is categorically stated

that there was scratches, hurt marks, blood and bruises

all over her face, back of the arms and body;

(iv) that the hair had been pulled and chopped off as a

punishment and she looked retarded;

(v) that attempt was made by the complainant to call

the helpline, but to no avail.

6. That the above inferences drawn have a bearing

because it is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the

minor child lived in a house inside a secured compound called

“Judges’ Colony, Roshanabad, Haridwar”, and it is an

admitted fact that there are five houses in the compound, out

of which, two houses are occupied by the officers of the rank

of Additional District Judge, two by Magistrates and one by

the petitioner. One of the Additional District Judge’s is PW1

and was the immediate neighbor, and abutting the Judges’

Colony Compound, the houses of District Judge, District

Magistrate/ Collector and the Senior Superintendent of Police

are situated. The Magistrate (in-charge) of the Juvenile

Justice Board was the opposite door neighbour. The presence

of the above persons is narrated herein to test the veracity of

the contents of the complaint, more particularly, the

11

allegation of daily beatings, and the allegation of bleeding

wound on the head as on 10.01.2018. If any act of violence is

used on a minor child that results in a bleeding wound, then

common sense and logic would lead one to presume that the

minor child would have screamed in pain. The allegation of

daily beating pre-supposes the presence of the complainant

at the time of beating and witnessing the same. It speaks of

daily occurrences, implying thereby that the “anonymous

complainant” was a resident or a daily visitor for otherwise he

or she could not have witnessed the events every day. We

say so, in view of the fact that the “Judges Colony” was a

compounded enclave with entry restricted.

7. We have perused the original record and have

come across the medical certificate in a form and format

never before this Court has seen. The examination form

neither records as an admission form, or an outpatient form.

The script is undecipherable and there is no signature of the

Doctor who examined, nor is there a case history recorded by

the examining doctor, nor is the examining doctor or any

other doctor holding the post, been examined, and even more

surprising is that the original of the said medical certificate is

not available. The absence of recording the case history is

surprising, as the victim was the best person to have confided

with the doctor the identity of the assailant and the manner,

in which, they were caused. In all, twenty injuries are

12

recorded and the age of the injuries is recorded as between

1-2 days, and even more surprising is that it is attested by a

staff nurse and a pharmacist, and it is recorded that the

bodily examination is carried out in their presence. This is a

practice this Court have never come across where the

examining doctor gets the examination done in the presence

of witnesses and gets the witnesses to attest the medical

certificate, and we need not delve deep to ascertain the

veracity of the opinion.

8. The complaint speaks of injuries all over the body,

i.e. on 10.01.2018, examination is carried out on 29.01.2018,

and the age of the wounds states that they are 1-2 days old.

If the wounds are 1 or 2 days old, then which are injuries that

were observed by the complainant on 10.01.2018? The

complainant details all the injuries on 10.01.2018 itself. 19

days of a winter month and the young age would logically

lead one to presume that the wounds would have healed.

What surprises this Court even more is the laudable objective

of the complainant, who states that the complaint is made

only because the complainant felt human and was shocked by

the presence of blood all over the head and face, yet “the

“human” complainant failed to take custody of the child and

admit her to hospital.” Viewed from this angle, it casts a

shadow over the truthfulness of the allegations, which gets

strengthened by the absence of the original of the medical

13

certificate and the absence of a medically qualified witness to

speak about and prove the contents of the medical (wound)

certificate. The persons who have been examined are the

staff nurse and the pharmacist.

9. It is alarming because all the persons involved are

trained judicial officers. The Inquiry Officer was of the rank of

Additional District Judge, the Presenting Officer was of the

rank of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, P.W.1 was of the rank of

the Additional District Judge, and neighbor of the petitioner,

P.W.3 was the then District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar

district, and yet, the manner and method, in which, they have

gone about in demonstrating the charges is shocking. The

lapses, more particularly, the omission to have the medical

certificate spoken through a qualified doctor leaves us aghast.

10. That apart, it has been the consistent stand of the

petitioner to question the validity of the order directing

inquiry. Perusal of the files does not reveal any note of the

then Chief Justice Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, who later was

elevated to the Hon’ble Apex Court in August, 2018, and this

coupled with the fact that no Call Detail Records (CDR) of

P.W.1, P.W.3 and the then Registrar General (In-charge)

have been placed to demonstrate at least the conversations

attributing knowledge to the then Chief Justice. Apparently,

the e-mail ID to which the complaint is addressed is not that

14

of the Chief Justice, but that of the High Court which is

handled by the Computer Section. The omission to place the

CDRs despite the persistence of the petitioner casts a cloud

over the very initiation of the inquiry.

11. That apart, the omission to examine the best

witnesses, i.e. the peons who were rendering duty in the

house of the petitioner or examining the other neighbours

would also cast a cloud on the probity of the inquiry. These

are some of the lapses and lacunaes, why this Court refers to

the proceedings as “a carefully crafted edifice without a

foundation”.

12. What is even more surprising is the failure to

examine the then Registrar General/ Registrar General (In-

charge) who claim to have been telephonically ordered by the

then Hon’ble Chief Justice (i) to direct an inquiry, and; (ii) to

issue an order of suspension.

13. That apart, the refusal of the High Court to

ascertain the identity of the complainant is also puzzling, that

too in the face of the circulars advising against anonymous

complaints. The note dated 29.01.2018 records the signatory

as the Registrar (Infrastructure) and the note prepared by

him reads as under:-

“A complaint dated 10.01.2018 was received in the High

Court’s Email account from email address

nitukumar321@rediffmail.com against Ms. Deepali Sharma,

15

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar. Said complaint is

addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Said complaint is being

reproduced hereinafter.

“Respected sir,

This is to bring to your notice that Civil Judge Mrs.

Deepali Sharma, posted at Haridwar is grossly abusing a

minor girl (child). She has kept as a maid servant in her

house both physically, mentally and emotionally. The girl

has been taken in exchange for a favor from her parents

who are in Haldwani or somewhether there and who were

litigants or so in Mrs. Deepali’s court. The girl child is in a

miserable state which is beyond words as she is being

beaten daily and starved. She has scratches, hurt marks,

blood and bruises all over her face, back of arms and

body. The girl gets no food for days and is without

clothes. She is kept wearing a vest and cotton pajama in

severe winter of Haridwar. The entire day, the girl is

made to work and tortured. Her hair has also been pulled

and chopped of as a punishment so she looks retarded.

The girl now looks like a bag of bones nearing death. She

begged me for food and help. I called the child helpline

number 1098 many times but they seem disinterested in

the case. Please rescue the girl child from the evil cluthes

of Mrs. Deepali Sharma and her mother and kindly

rehabilitate the child with her parents. Many people in

Haridwar court are aware of the situation but are very

scared to make a complaint. It was my duty as a human

being to help save that child so I have taken this initiative

to being the matter to your notice. I trust in God that he

will help save this poor child’s life through you.

Yours sincerely,

A well meaning Citizen

Today, i.e., on 29.01.2018, Respected

Registrar General has informed that he has apprised

Hon’ble the Chief Justice about the said complaint and His

Lordship has directed that District Judge, Haridwar be

directed to visit the spot and to verify the contents of said

complaint and if contents of the complaint are found

correct, to take necessary action in accordance with law.

16

His Lordship has further directed to ask for a report from

the District Judge after the inquiry along with the repot of

action taken in the matter.

Respected Registrar General has informed that

approval from Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been taken by

him telephonically and has directed me to sent a letter to

District Judge, Haridwar immediately.

In compliance of the directions given by Respected

Registrar General, a confidential letter

No.431/Admin.A/2017 dated 29.01.2018 along with the

copy of complaint has been sent to District Judge,

Haridwar to do the needful immediately.”

14. It is pertinent to note that the signatory was, in

fact, discharging duties as Registrar General (In-charge). The

note records that the Registrar General had conveyed the

information to the Chief Justice and obtained his approval

telephonically and that the Registrar General had informed

him telephonically that the then Hon’ble Chief Justice had

directed that the District Judge, Haridwar be directed to visit

the spot and to verify the contents of the complaint and if

contents of the complaint are found correct, to take

necessary action in accordance with law, but unfortunately,

neither the then Registrar General, nor the Registrar General

(In-charge), [Registrar (Infrastructure)], who has issued the

confidential letter directing the District Judge, Haridwar to do

the needful immediately on 29.01.2018 are examined.

15. The next note dated 30.01.2018 records that the

confidential report has been received from the District Judge,

Haridwar on 30.01.2018 itself and along with the report,

17

medical report, statement of P.W.1, i.e. neighbour of the

petitioner, statement of the minor victim, and the letter of

Ms. Rachita Juyal, Circle Officer Sadar addressed to the

Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar and letter of the

Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar addressed to the

District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, letter of the Child

Welfare Committee, Administrative Order of the District

Judge, Haridwar appointing the 4

th

Additional District Judge,

Haridwar to record the statement of the minor victim have

been forwarded.

16. It is surprising to note that though the Magistrate

heading the Juvenile Justice Board was available in the said

Judges’ Colony itself, yet a Senior Judge of the rank of the

Additional District Judge has been assigned the duty to record

the statement of the minor child.

17. The note yet again refers to telephonic

communication and also refers to instructions by the

Registrar General to the signatory to forward the report to

the e-mail of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice and the e-mail

account of the then Registrar General implying thereby that

neither the then Hon’ble Chief Justice, nor the then Registrar

General were available.

18. It is further pertinent to note that neither have

these e-mails been produced, nor do the office records bear a

18

copy of the same. Yet again, the note further refers to

instructions having been issued by the then Hon’ble Chief

Justice to the then Registrar General, and the then Registrar

General having conveyed the same to the then Registrar

General (In-charge) to immediately issue an order of

suspension.

19. Thus, it is apparent that electronic mode of

communication has been claimed to have been predominantly

used, even to the extent of getting the concurrence of the

then Hon’ble Chief Justice for issuing an order of suspension.

If that be so, it was imperative that proof of the same ought

to have been placed, more so, when the petitioner was

questioning the authenticity of the orders claimed to have

been passed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice.

20. What causes disbelief is why a complaint of such

“serious proportions” was not brought to the notice to the

then Chief Justice immediately as records reveal that the last

working date of the High Court was 12.01.2018. Assuming

lapses, then it was imperative to produced and place in the

inquiry the copies of the e-mail communications, by which,

the matter is said to have been e-mailed or Whatsapp

communication, which is claimed to be the mode of exchange

of information between the High Court and the then Hon’ble

Chief Justice. We say so, in view of the fact that the person

19

accused was a “Judicial Officer”. Such material ought to have

been produced at least after the petitioner raised queries

about the authenticity of the proceedings directing an inquiry

and report, and further directing the suspension of the officer.

The omission to place these material could have been

overlooked, had such a query not been raised by the

petitioner. What is even more startling is that though the

entire controversy surrounded a minor victim and the genesis

for the inquiry being the act of employing a minor child as a

maid servant, the same is not one of the charges that was

framed against the delinquent officer. Page No.6 of the

records, reveals a note by the Assistant Registrar, whereby

the note records a representation from the petitioner stating

that the minor victim had been admitted to school and she

had completed her 8

th

standard in the year 2016 and passed

out with first division from Government Junior High School,

Roshanabad and was presently studying in 9

th

standard at

Adarsh Shishu Niketan (ASN Inter College), Dheerwali,

Jwalapur while staying with her and that as the order of

suspension has been passed without an opportunity, she has

sought for an opportunity of personal hearing with the then

Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Administrative Judges of

Haridwar and Tehri Garhwal.

21. This explanation regarding the minor child having

been admitted to a school and pursuing education has been

20

made by the petitioner at the earliest point of time on

05.02.2018, i.e. in less than a week of the so called raid of

the house. The note does not bear signature of the Registrar

General. The next records is a note put up to the then Hon’ble

Chief Justice, putting up the request of the police, i.e. the

letter of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar dated

31.01.2018 seeking permission to register an Fir, which is

approved in view of the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

U.P. Judicial Officers’ Association vs. Union of India &

others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 687 , holding that no

permission of the Chief Justice is required. The dates below

the signature appear to be in different hand writing and there

is over writing in the month. There appears to be an over

writing and alterations to the date. Number (1) appears to

have been added before number (6) with regard to the date

and number (8) with regard to the month, there is over

writing as (2) and with regard to the year, the year is

recorded as ‘16’. The handwriting even to the naked eye, by

which, number (1) has been added and number (8) over

written with number (2) and the last numbers ‘16’ indicating

the year do not inspire confidence in this Court.

22. Be that as it may, even if the respondents are

given the benefit of doubt with regard to the lapse in the

ordering of discreet inquiry, which, under the Rules only the

office of the Chief Justice is vested with the said power. What

21

compounds the allegation and forces this Court to lean in

favour of the petitioner with regard to this aspect of the

matter is the rejection of the repeated attempts by the

petitioner to secure the records. The first application came be

to made by the petitioner as early as on 28.05.2018, and was

rejected by the High Court on 31.08.2018 and an application

to the Inquiry Officer to summon the records also met with

the similar fate by the order of the Inquiry Officer dated

30.12.2020. But the fact remains that these proceedings

have been relied upon by the Inquiry Officer, which in our

considered opinion, is a grave lapse. Documents relied upon

by the Inquiry Officer or by the Presenting Officer are

required to be furnished to the delinquent officer in

compliance with Rules and the Principles of Natural Justice.

23. What really startled us and engaged our curiosity

and compelled us to look deeper was the, 660 paragraphs on

356 page gargantuan inquiry report in respect of a simple

issue of “employing a minor as a domestic help”. We now

proceed to examine as to what was the requirement or the

required material facts that were required to be proved or

disproved by the employer to prove the charges levelled

against the delinquent officer?

24. From the reading of the complaint, some of the

basic facts that were required to be proved was that; (i) that

22

there were proceedings initiated against the father of the

child (DW-2) which could result in a jail term,(ii). that the

Petitioner had saved the child’s father (DW-2) from going to

jail, (iii). the child was a minor; (iv) the child was employed

as a maid contrary to the Child and Adolescent Labour

(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986; (v). that the child was

physically assaulted; (vi) that the assault was with the intent

to cause injury, (vii) that the injuries alleged to have been

found on the body of the victim were caused by the

petitioner, and lastly; (viii) the petitioner had violated Rules

3(1) and 3(2) of the Uttarakhand Government Servant’s

Conduct Rules, 2002, as notified in the charge-memo.

Apparently there are no eye-wtnesses and even the eye-

witnesses cited by PW-1 have not been summoned nor the

“best” placed witnesses, that is the peons assigned to the

house of the Petitioner, been summoned. Despite the

availability of the best evidence they have not been

examined. We are flummoxed by this glaring lacunae.

25. Rule 3(1) reads as under:-

“3. General- (1)- Every government servant shall at

all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.”

26. Rule 3(2) reads as under:-

“3(2) Every government servant shall at all times

conduct himself in accordance with the specific or implied

orders of Government regulating behaviour and conduct

which may be in force.”

23

27. In fact, Rule 3(4) specifically deals with a

prohibition, prohibiting government servants from employing

the children below the age of fourteen years as domestic

help, but the petitioner has not been charged with Rule 3(4),

but is charged of having violated the provisions of sub-rules

(1) and (2) of Rule 3 of the Uttarakhand Government

Servant’s Conduct Rules, 2002. Despite specific charge of

prohibition of employment of minors being available under

the Rules, no charge alleging the violation of sub-rule (4) of

Rule 3 has been levelled against the delinquent officer.

Though, the imputations refer to the same, but it is pertinent

to record that the very same charge-memo records the age of

minor victim as 15 years.

28. Be that as it may, what leaves us wondering is why

‘a statement of fact’ by the petitioner at the earliest point of

time, i.e. 06.02.2018 claiming that the child had been

educated upto 8

th

standard in a Government School, and 9

th

standard in another school was pointedly ignored, befuddles

us. The said statement of fact having been made even prior

to the issue of charge-memo, it was something that the

respondents ought to have verified. At this juncture, it is

pertinent to note that the prosecution lodged by the State

was subsequently withdrawn by the State, despite the same,

the inquiry continued.

24

29. Another aspect of the matter, which causes

disbelief, is the necessity to keep the child in a home and

away from the parents for nearly five months when the

parents were identified and were willing to have her custody

and there was no allegation of any ill-treatment or abuse

against the parent. That aside, the order releasing or handing

over the custody to the parents causes disbelief.

30. There is not a single reason recorded justifying the

prolonged detention of the child and that too, a school going

child in a home away from her parents and her family. More

importantly, the child did not allege, as noted above, any ill-

treatment, abuse or exploitation either by her parents or her

family.

31. Even the order of the Child Welfare Committee

dated 01.02.2018 passed while considering the application for

custody of the minor is more shocking. It speaks of a case

being monitored by the High Court. It speaks of as to how a

farmer could have developed a direct contact with a high level

official and that it is worth looking into and that the question

begs consideration; further observation that no Indian law

stipulates that if a person has nine daughters, he should

handover them to another person due to poverty or any other

reason is a cruel joke. The reasons recorded to state the least

are laughable. When the contact number of her uncle and her

25

parents has been given by the child and when the parents

have been identified and summoned by the Authorities and

spoken to by the Authorities, such reasoning only indicates

that all is not above -board.

32. Lastly, what really shakes us, is the manner, in

which, “the raid has been conducted”. Assuming that there

was a direction to the District Judge to inquire into the

authenticity of the complaint, there was absolutely no call or

mandate by the District Judge to marshal a huge police force

including the Senior Superintendent of Police, an office of the

rank of C.O., C.W.C., two videographers for video recording

of the raid etc. in all involving more than 20 persons, which is

a battalion of policemen. If such diligent efforts had been

taken, probably, a few terrorist could have been arrested. The

manner and method raises questions and leaves us

wondering as to whether it is a case of over-kill or motivated?

The questioning of the victim / minor child was done outside

the house and in the open which also leaves us wondering

whether it was aimed at shaming the petitioner. So much is

said about the clothing that the minor child wore, yet the

entire exercise has been carried out in the open of the very

said winter month, and a mere glance at the transcription is

enough to demonstrate that the exercise was a lengthy one.

It is not anybody’s case that the minor child was shivering,

26

yet much has been said about the clothing though P.W.1

admits that the child was not shivering.

33. Having examined the facts, we may now proceed to

appreciate the inquiry report.

34. The Inquiry Officer has recorded the order dated

11.03.2019 appointing her as an Inquiry Officer. Nextly, the

Inquiry Officer has recorded the receipt of the complaint

through e-mail on 10.01.2018. In Paragraph No.5, it is

recorded that the complaint was brought to the notice of the

then Hon’ble Chief Justice and vide telephonic/oral direction

dated 29.01.2018, the then Hon’ble Chief Justice is said to

have directed the District Judge, Haridwar to visit the spot

and verify the said complaint, and it is further directed that if

the complaint is found to be correct, then necessary action be

taken in accordance with law. The said order of the then

Hon’ble Chief Justice is not produced in the proceedings. The

letter written by the then Registrar General on 29.01.2018 is

made available in the inquiry as Paper No.28. The contents of

the letter authored by the then Registrar General (In-charge)

is quoted.

35. In Paragraph No.7, it is recorded that the District

Judge, Haridwar, on receipt of the letter, visited the spot,

verified the contents of the complaint and submitted his

report on 30.01.2018, and the report is marked as Paper

27

Nos.41 to 45. It is pertinent to note that the report refers to

the medical records being enclosed. The reliance on the

unilateral “preliminary enquiry” report is itself a grave error.

36. In Paragraph No.8, it is recorded that the District

Judge, after receipt of the letter from the High Court, vide

letter No.125, dated 29.01.2018, requested the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Haridwar to constitute a team of

police officers led by a female officer not below the rank of

Circle Officer, and the Senior Superintendent of Police was

briefed about the matter and was informed to keep the

matter confidential. Accordingly, Ms. Rachita Juyal, ASP

Sadar, Sri Ashok Sharma, Probation Officer at Child Welfare

Committee and other police personnel, two police Constables

in civil dress were taken along with the camera for video

recording the raid and rescue. In Paragraph No.9, it is

recorded that the team on reaching the residence of Ms.

Deepali Sharma, rang the door bell and a thin and frail girl

came out of the main gate and the petitioner, who was on

Child Care Leave, was available at home.

37. In Paragraph No.10, the Inquiry Officer has

recounted the contents of the report dated 30.01.2018. In

Paragraph No.11, again the contents of the report are

recounted to state that the petitioner was giving her

explanation on behalf of the girl. In Paragraph No.12, “the

28

demand of the petitioner to produce the order of the High

Court” is recorded. It is further recorded that Ms. Deepali

Sharma even tried to hold the ASP in order to prevent her

from taking away the minor child. In Paragraph Nos.13 and

14, the contents of the statement of the minor girl- P.W.2

said to have been made in the S.S.P.’s office are recounted.

Paragraph No.15 is an extract of the report relating to the act

of the petitioner trying to forcibly enter the room where the

minor victim was sitting and was being questioned. Paragraph

No.16 refers to the medical examination by the hospital

authorities and recording of 20 injuries found on the body of

the minor victim. Paragraph No.16 erroneously records that

the minor girl was produced before the Child Welfare

Committee. The evidences clearly point out that the members

of the Child Welfare Committee were also present in the

hospital and the minor girl was handed over to them. The

recording of the statement of P.W.1- 1

st

Additional District

Judge and the girl on 30.01.2018 is recounted. In Paragraph

No.17, it is recorded that the report dated 30.01.2018 and

the statement of P.W.1- 1

st

ADJ “sufficiently show” that the

minor victim was kept as a domestic servant and she was

being ill-treated, beaten and starved by Ms. Deepali Sharma

and the injuries on the body of the girl child sufficiently and

loudly speak about the beating, ill-treatment and torture

inflicted by the petitioner on the minor girl child and that the

29

girl was not being given any money for the work being done

by her. Paragraph No.18 records that the report dated

30.01.2018 was brought to the knowledge of the then Chief

Justice and the then Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to

place the petitioner under suspension. A copy of the order is

placed as Paper No.48. Charge was framed on 10.08.2018. In

Paragraph No.19, the charge is extracted.

38. In Paragraph No.21, the contents of the written

statement of the petitioner are extracted. It is contended that

the proceedings were carried out by the District Judge

contrary to the directions of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice

and the proceedings are vitiated by bias and prejudices; that

she has admitted the custody of the child given to her by her

parents and that she had attempted to educate the poor child

and to provide a companion to her daughter who was of the

same age or thereabouts. She has denied having subjected

the minor child to any beating or physical abuse. She has

denied that she was kept as a maid servant or that she had

helped her father in any criminal case. She denied the

knowledge of any proceeding initiated by one Prem Dhella.

She has denied that she had interfered in any case and points

out that this aspect of her helping the minor girl’s father in a

criminal case is also stated in the complaint; that the girl had

not complained to anyone in the locality or to any of the

visitors to her house. The petitioner further claimed that the

30

veracity of P.W.1’s claim is doubtful in view of the allegations

levelled against him by one of his orderlies; that she had not

made any allegation against the Hon’ble High Court. She

admits that she alleged a conspiracy by one of her fraternity;

that it was an attempt to malign her image as a Judicial

Officer; that the minor girl did not utter a single word against

the petitioner till she was taken away from her house; that

the statement has been recorded in the absence of her family

members or her parents and allegations have been extracted

under fear and influence; that at the time of preparation of

recovery memo, no visible injury was seen; that even in the

alleged statement of the minor girl, no detail of date, time of

the abuse are stated; that the girl could not have recorded

lengthy statement before the ADJ on 30.01.2018; that it is

alleged that the medical report is manipulated and prepared

in the presence of police, and; that the minor girl was kept in

home for over four months and all attempts of her parents to

meet her and to have her custody were sabotaged and

sought opportunity of cross-examination.

39. In Paragraph No.24, the Inquiry Officer records that

seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the

“prosecution”, i.e. P.W.1- 1

st

Additional District Judge, P.W.2-

the minor girl, P.W.3- the then District Judge, Hardiwar,

P.W.4- Sri Ashok Sharma, Probation Officer, P.W.5- Ms.

Rachita Juyal, ASP, P.W.6- Mrs. Ruchika Chauhan, staff nurse

31

of the district hospital, who is said to have been present when

the minor was physically examined and P.W.7- Sri Prakash

Chand Raturi, pharmacist of the district hospital. P.W.6 and

P.W.7 are the ones who are said to have attested the medical

(wound) certificate.

40. On behalf of the petitioner/ delinquent officer, the

Chief Administrative Officer, Harmilap Mission Districtg

Hospital as D.W.1, Sri Hem Chand Dani as D.W.2, the minor

girl’s father and the petitioner herself as D.W.3 are examined.

41. Initially, six documents were marked and during

the inquiry, five documents and one of them is the

information obtained from the internet regarding the

Hemoglobin levels. Another document is the statement of the

minor girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.

No.58/2018; (ii) certified copy of the order passed by the

C.W.C. dated 22.05.2018 handing over the custody of the

child to the father; (iii) Medico Legal Register produced by

P.W.7- Pharmacist on behalf of the hospital; (iv) copy of the

information available on the internet with regard to the school

fees.

42. On behalf of the petitioner/ delinquent officer, the

written statement submitted to the High Court; Aadhar

enrolment acknowledgment of the petitioner’s son,

petitioner’s daughter and the minor girl Tiruja produced as

32

Paper Nos.108, 109 and 110; Paper No.111 is the application

for admission to school, in respect of the minor; Paper

No.112 is the school leaving certificate of the minor and

during inquiry, the petitioner has produced two C.Ds/ D.V.Ds

that is, recordings of the raid and the alleged rescue of the

child; copy of G.D. case supplied by the S.S.P. Haridwar;

transcript of the video footage contained in C.Ds - 79/1 to

79/2; copy of the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by the Child

Welfare Committee; copy of the letter written by the CWC to

the D.M. and SSP, Nainital dated 07.02.2018; newspaper

cutting; copy of attendance register produced by D.W.1;

newspaper cuttings marked through D.W.2; copy of phone bill

with CDR; counter-affidavit filed by D.W.2 before the Hon’ble

High Court; copy of the application seeking information under

the Right to Information Act from the Hon’ble High Court;

copy of the letter dated 20.01.2018 addressed by the

petitioner to the Hon’ble High Court; copy of the information

provided to the petitioner by the Administrative Officer,

District Court Haridwar; photocopy of the letter written by the

In-charge Cyber Crime Cell, District Haridwar; photocopy of

the e-mail “nitukumar321LOGS”; photocopy of certain details

obtained through true caller application; photocopy of the

information sought under the Right to Information Act from

the S.P. Haridwar; copy of the information provided by the

Station House Officer, P.S. SIDCUL, Haridwar; copy of the

33

information provided by the Administrative Officer, District

Court Haridwar; copy of the reply to the notice issued by the

I.O. Manoj Kumar Katyal to Executive Director, Child Line

India Foundation; photocopy of the application whereby the

petitioner sought information under the Right to Information

Act regarding the blood test report, ossification test; reports

of other tests of minor girl; copy of the blood investigation

report of the minor girl dated 03.02.2018; photocopy of X-ray

of right wrist, elbow and knee of the minor girl dated

30.01.2018; photocopy of the letter written by the petitioner

to the High Court dated 05.05.2018; copy of the statement

recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Ms. Ritika Semwal,

2

nd

Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar; information

provided by the PIO/ SP City, Haridwar to the petitioner,

being a copy of the order passed by the First Appellate

Authority/ I.G. Police; photocopy of screen shot of phone;

photocopy of the Customer Relationship Form of Sri Manoj

Kumar, and; copy of the letter written by In-charge Cyber

Crime Cell, Haridwar to the S.S.P., Haridwar.

43. In Paragraph No.31, the arguments of the

Department Representative/ Presenting Officer are recorded.

The arguments reiterate the contents of the report and the

C.D./D.V.D. summoned on the request of the petitioner; that

the petitioner attempted to prompt the answers to the

questions put to the minor child; that the recording would

34

show that the child failed to show her bedding, hence, the

same demonstrates no proper bedding was provided by the

petitioner, though it was the winter month of January; that

the same demonstrates that she did not treat the minor child

as one of her own kid; that the statement of the child made

in the SSP’s office and the contents of the medical report

marked said to have been proved through P.W.6- staff nurse

and P.W.7- pharmacist; that P.W.2, the minor girl, has tried

to hide injuries and has explained only one fresh injury and

other fresh injuries are not explained by her and thereby

trying to protect the petitioner; that the scratch can never be

self-inflicted; that multiple abrasions can never be self-

inflicted; that there is no place in the bathroom to store the

wood, as alleged by the minor girl; that no wood or log is

seen in the video; that the said statement is a false

statement made by the minor girl; that the girl was kept in

Shri Ram Ashram, she refused to go from there with her

parents, as she feared that her parents will again send her to

the petitioner and that she would again commit atrocities on

the minor child; that the petitioner did not allow the minor

girl to talk to her parents; that the statement of the father as

D.W.2 that he requested others to take care of his daughters

because of his poverty; that the petitioner used the daughter

as a domestic help; that because of his poverty and undue

influence and pressure created by the petitioner, he has

35

deposed in favour of the petitioner; that the Government

School fees in Uttarakhand is Rs.27/- and even a poor person

can afford it, hence, there was no reason to send the minor

girl to the petitioner, and the real reason was to have the girl

work as a domestic servant; that though it is claimed that the

girl is studying in a residential school, no documents are

produced either by P.W.2 or D.W.2. He would contend that

the contention that he could not afford the fees is falsified by

the claim of the father and the child that the minor girl is

presently being educated in the residential school; that this

alone would demonstrate the minor girl was sent as a

domestic help and not for the purpose of being educated.

44. It is contended that there is a Government School

available in the girl’s village itself; that the Government

schools provide midday meal that burden also would not have

fallen on the father; that there was no emotional attachment

between the petitioner and the minor girl; “that the minor girl

did not remain with the petitioner after her rescue”; that

D.W.2, the father has deposed that he opposed the marriage

of his elder daughter Nirmala with Prem Dhela; that it is this

Prem Dhela and Nirmala marriage issue led to D.W.2 sending

that minor girl P.W.2 to the petitioner as the petitioner

assisted them in the criminal case; that the ground of

conspiracy and representation regarding objecting the

promotions is baseless, as other officers of her batch too

36

moved representations before the Hon’ble High court and got

promoted; that despite being engaged as a domestic servant,

no salary was paid to the minor girl; that the matter requires

to be seen from the point of view of preponderance of

probabilities and is not expected to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt. Hence, it was not necessary to summon

the ADJ, who recorded the statement; that both statements

of the minor girl dated 30.01.2018 and recorded under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are similar despite the time gap; that

the minor girl has reiterated before the ADJ, what she is

heard saying in the video recording; “that the statement of

the minor girl in the inquiry are on account of the influence of

the petitioner”; that the minor child was in so much fear of

the petitioner; that she did not share anything about the

petitioner with her father and that is why the father is

unaware about the maltreatment; “that the information

provided by the I.G.-Appellate Authority is beyond his

jurisdiction and power and authority”; that when the

information about the e-mail was not available to the police,

then the police could not have furnished information

regarding the mail; “that the information provided under the

Right to Information Act is in contravention of the provisions

of the Right to Information Act”; that the rediffmail was not

within the local jurisdiction of Haridwar police, as the server

was maintained outside India; “that no record is produced to

37

demonstrate the communication between the police and the

rediffmail”; that the documents produced is not authenticated

by the rediffmail and it is an admitted fact that the police did

not have the information, and police have not registered any

FIR with regard to the e-mail; “that it is not possible to

provide direct evidence of maltreatment or beating of the

minor girl, as all have occurred inside the house”; that the

injury in the middle of her head can never be caused by the

fall from a tree; that despite so many injuries on the body of

the minor girl, the petitioner has not provided proof of any

medical treatment; that the medical examination report has

been duly proved by P.W.6 and P.W.7 as the examining

doctor had passed away in the interregnum; that P.W.6 and

P.W.7 were summoned as their names were found in the

examination report; that reference to Section 27 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences is erroneous and

is applicable when an offence is committed against the victim

under the POCSO Act; that the production of the statement

recorded under Section 164 is unsustainable as “the minor

child had turned hostile because the fear of the petitioner’s

beating, the minor has resiled from her statement”; that the

verification of anonymous complaint was not necessary as the

contents of the complaint were verified by the District Judge;

that the security is mandatory for shelter homes and the

police security and installation of CCTV camera is the norm;

38

“that the presence of the police personnel in Shri Ram

Ashram where the minor child was kept for a few months”

was for the protection of all the children living there.

45. The Department Representative has relied on the

following judgments:-

(i) Civil Appeal No.9520 of 2019, Uttarakhand Transport

Corporation & others vs. Heera Singh Parihar, dated

18.12.2019.

(ii) Baldev Singh Gandhi vs. State of Punjab & others, Appeal

(Civil) No.1188 of 2002, decided on 14.02.2002.

(iii) Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs. Narendr Singh,

Appeal (Civil) No.7488 of 2004, decided on 05.04.2006.

(iv) State of Haryana & others vs. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC

1512.

(v) State of Assam vs. Mahendra Kumar Das & others, AIR

1970 SC 1255.

46. In Paragraph No.22, the Presiding Officer has

attempted to belittle and discredit the information provided

by the Cyber Crime Cell regarding the source of e-mail ID

under which the complaint was sent to the High Court. Rules

of Inquiry permitted rebuttal evidence by one party of the

evidence produced by another. The same not having been

availed and the Presenting Officer having not summoned the

authority issuing the information, the contention has no legs

to stand on. The attempt to negate a crucial piece of evidence

by stating that the information was not available with the

issuing authority is presumptive and in contrary to all known

canons of evidence. In Paragraph No.23, the Presenting

39

Officer claims evidence has been collected during preliminary

inquiry. In Paragraph No.24, the Presenting Officer claims

that direct evidence of beating is not possible, when even

according to P.W.-1, he was informed about the same by the

two peons assigned and working in the residence of the

petitioner. Again the question arises as to why they were not

summoned and examined.

47. As noted supra, the peons assigned by the Court to

the house of the petitioner were the best possible form of

witness/ evidence, yet they have been ignored/ screened. In

Paragraph No.25, though it is claimed that no evidence of

medical treatment arranged by the petitioner is found,

despite all the frenzy + hoopla about twenty injuries, no

material is placed on record by the Presenting Officer to

demonstrate hospitalization of the minor child even for a day,

nor any admission record, or discharge summary are

presented, nor proof of any administration of medicine or

treatment has been produced. This singular fact, by itself,

would cast a shadow on the fact of presence of bleeding and

fresh injuries and cuts, as recorded in Paragraph No.26. The

claim that medical records, i.e. medical (wound) certificate

have been duly proved, is in a manner unheard of and

unknown to law as the persons examined in support of it are

a nurse and pharmacist and both of whom are not competent

to prove a “wound certificate”.

40

48. Apparently, the author, i.e. the doctor employed

with the hospital, is claimed to have passed away, but it is

not a case that there was no other doctor who was competent

to speak about the wound certificate. This Court has raised

queries about the form and format at the earliest instance

itself. In Paragraph No.31, the attempt to discredit the

evidence of P.W.2, the minor child, by stating that she has

resiled from her 164 statement because of petitioner’s

influence, cannot be appreciated. The fact remains that the

State had withdrawn the prosecution initiated against the

petitioner, which was never questioned by anybody, much

less, the alleged victim or her family members, or the High

Court.

49. The efforts of Inquiry Officer to discredit the

reliance on Section 27 of the POCSO Act cannot be

appreciated. The prosecution itself having been withdrawn,

the question arises as to whether the reliance on Section 164

statement was justified and legally sustainable? The

contention that verification of the source of e-mail and

identity of the complainant were irrelevant, as the contents of

the complaint had been verified, is contrary to the admissions

elicited during the cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4

and P.W.5.

41

50. The further contention that the shelter home

cannot be run without police protection, is wholly unfounded.

Apparently, it was a private orphanage, as described in the

order of the Child Welfare Committee dated 22.05.2018, as

Orphan Shishu Trust of India, Shri Ram Ashram, Shyampur,

registered under Section 36(1), no such registration

certificate has been placed. The further contention that

shelter homes required police security and CCTV cameras,

does not appear to be the norm as it has emerged that the

CCTV and police personnel/ security vanished after the minor

was released from the “Ashram”. The law which permits

lodging of a rescued juvenile in a “Ashram” is not quoted.

Further, why the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act were

not followed is not forthcoming. Per contra, the petitioner/

delinquent officer has contended that there is no eye-witness

produced; that there is no evidence that the minor was

maltreated or physical abuses or assaulted the child, or used

the child as a domestic servant without making a payment;

that the medical report is forged and fabricated and has not

been proved; that it is a case of vendetta, vengeance and

conspiracy against the petitioner; that the FIR was registered

without the explicit permission of the High Court, and that

too, for a case of human trafficking and at the instance of

P.W.1; that the High Court has been misled; that no

incriminating material has been placed or any clinching

42

evidence placed before the Inquiry Authority; the Presenting

Officer is not a Prosecuting Officer; that the evidence

collected during the preliminary inquiry cannot be read in

(emphasis supplied by this Court); that only the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.7 and the documents marked through them can

be gone into; that no document demonstrating the

misconduct on the part of the petitioner; that information

regarding the source of e-mail was obtained by the

petitioner; that Paper No.417 obtained by the petitioner

through RTI demonstrates the IP address, computer used for

e-mail and customer information were furnished by the

Authority; that though, the application was made in

September, the information was provided only in February;

that the authority is vested in the police to seek and secure

information from the service provider by a written acquisition;

that the registration of the FIR and criminal case for offence

punishable under the IPC is not denied; that the e-mail

originated from the mobile number registered in the name of

P.W.1’s wife; that the contents of the complaint were already

known to P.W.1 even before it was conveyed by the High

Court to the District Judge (emphasis supplied by this Court);

that had the petitioner misbehaved or tortured the victim, the

victim would have taken the opportunity to complain to the

High Court or the raiding team; that the rescue team headed

by the District Judge was accompanied by P.W.1 and his

43

steno was found accompanying them; that there was neither

a warrant nor any circumstance that justified the presence of

armed police personnel to be sent to the house of the

petitioner; that, though the mandate of the High Court was to

verify the contents of the complaint, but the District Judge

came with the objective of executing a rescue; that despite

the minor child not willing to leave the house of the

petitioner, she was forcibly taken against her wises; that

though, several officers are living in the same compound,

none except P.W.1 have been examined or called upon to

furnish any information; that the minor child was taken away

by the ASP (P.W.5); that the petitioner was treating the

minor child as the member of the family; that the minor child

used to make videos of the family, and had a close bonding

with the children; that the minor has denied the existence of

six fresh injuries marked as Injury Nos.13 to 20; that the

child has explained the lone fresh injury on the head by

stating that a piece of wood had fallen on her head while she

was bathing in the bathroom; that the medical examination of

the minor child by a male doctor, despite the availability of

female doctor in the hospital, is illegal; that there were two

female doctors working in the hospital, but neither of them

have been examined by the department; that the wound/

injury report was drawn up at the instance of P.W.1 and

P.W.5; that no prescription of providing of medical treatment

44

or medication by the shelter home or by the rescue team has

been placed in the inquiry; that the detention of the child in

the home for more than five months has disrupted the

education; that even as per the prosecution version, the girl

was earlier with the petitioner and after a break was once

again brought back till rescued and if the girl was assaulted

or unhappy, she would not have come back; that no proof

has been adduced by the Department by demonstrating

payment of any wages or salary; that the document

demonstrating payment of school fees has been ignored; that

the child hailing from mountains was well acclimatized to

severe cold and the cold weather in Haridwar is incomparable

to the same; that all amenities and requirement were

provided to the minor child; that the CDs/ DVDs recordings

were done during the alleged rescue of the minor child while

the recording of statement under Section 164 was pursuant

to the crime registered; that the minor child was kept against

her wishes in the orphanage and two policemen were deputed

in order to prevent the family members and friends from

interacting with the minor child; that the report of the District

Judge was actually prepared by P.W.1; that the source of e-

mail was obtained on the written requisition by the police

department; that the hemoglobin level of the minor child was

normal (emphasis supplied by this Court), and; that the

45

petitioner/ delinquent officer has relied on the following

rulings:-

“i. Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR

1983 SC 484.

ii. Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh & others, Criminal

Appeal No.1482 of 2013, decided on 20.10.2016.

iii. Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & others, Appeal

(Crl.) 119-121 of 1997, decided on 31.10.2003.

iv. Balvir Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal

Appeal No.1115 of 2010, decided on 19.02.2019.

v. Narayan Dattatraya vs. State of Maharashtra & others,

decided on 20.11.2019.

vi. Union of India vs. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364.

vii. Bank of India & another vs. Degala Suryanarayan,

Appeal (Civil) No.3053-54 of 1997, decided on

12.07.1999.

viii. Hardwari Lal vs. State of U.P. & others, decided on

27.10.1999.

ix. Hardev Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, Writ- A

No.24086 of 2011, decided on 20.11.2015.

x. M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India, Appeal (Civil) 8267 of

2004, decided on 05.04.2006.

xi. Moni Shankar vs. Union of India & another, Appeal

(Civil) No.1729 of 2008, decided on 04.03.2008.

xii. Narinder Mohan Arya vs. Union India Insurance Co.

Ltd., Appeal (Civil) 7645 of 2004, decided on 05.04.2006.

xiii. Rakhi Sharma vs. State of U.P., Allahabad High Court.

xiv. Reserve Bank of India, Banglore vs. C.S. Satya

Kumari, ILR 1993 KAR 1167, decided on 12.03.1993.

xv. Bharti Cellular Ltd. vs. Union of India & others, Civil

Appeal No.7026 of 2003, decided on 05.10.2010.”

46

51. From Paragraph No.38 onwards, the Inquiry Officer

(IO) has commenced appreciation of the material. In

Paragraph No.42, she discusses the e-mail/ complaint and

that the complaint was forwarded to the District Judge,

Haridwar on 29.01.2018; that the contents of the complaint

were verified by the District Judge on 29.01.2018 and report

was sent on 30.01.2018. In Paragraph No.44, the Inquiry

Officer has discussed the intervening events between

10.01.2018 and 29.01.2018 and discusses the telephonic

conversation between P.W.1 and the then Registrar General

(I/c). In Paragraph No.45, she discusses the statement of

P.W.1, and in fact, specifically records the statement of P.W.1

that he has not personally seen the child being assaulted, but

has heard that the petitioner beats up the minor child. The

Inquiry Officer has presumed the sanctity of the above

documents, when neither the author is examined nor

corroborative evidence, in the form of Call Detail Record or E-

mails have been produced.

52. After discussing the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2-

the victim and D.W.3, proceeds to conclude in Paragraph

No.51 that the act of resiling from the statement made

earlier, “appears to be on account of the minor child having

been won over by the petitioner” and on account of the same,

the minor child has denied the visit, as claimed by P.W.1.

47

There is absolutely no material placed or relied upon by the

I.O. to conclude in Paragraph No.51 that the minor girl has

been won over, when the fact remains that the minor child in

her cross-examination has categorically denied having met

the petitioner. The I.O. has failed to appreciate the answers

to Question Nos.7 and 26. In response to Question No.7, she

stated that she was taken straight to the Ashram and that

she stayed there for more than three and a half months and

in reply to Question No.26, she has stated that she was

meeting madam/ petitioner only today, i.e. 18.07.2018. The

accusation of the witness having been won over without any

material contradicting the answers to Question Nos.7 and 26,

renders the conclusion perverse. The cross-examination, that

is Paragraph Nos.10 to 39 have been completely ignored by

Inquiry Officer rendering the report perverse. In the answers

at Paragraphs 21, 30 and 31, the minor has categorically

stated that all household works were done by the two peons.

53. The acceptance of the explanation of P.W.1 in

Paragraph No.53 is contrary to the admission elicited in his

cross-examination. The Inquiry Officer has placed reliance on

the answer to Question No.41 and the cross-examination, in

our opinion, reliance on a portion of the answer appears

misleading. A portion of the answer without appreciating the

answers given by the victim child, who was flatly denied any

visit to P.W.1’s house appears to be a partial act. The

48

observations in Paragraph No.55 do not reflect a complete

picture. The Inquiry Officer has failed to appreciate the

answers to Paragraph Nos.42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49,

which clearly indicate that the High Court had already decided

and in the words of P.W.1, the incident was unfolding very

quickly and he had instructions not to divulge any

information, yet the claim is made that on the morning of

29.01.2018 he narrated the incident to the District Judge.

Interestingly, in reply to Question No.51, he would answer as

below:-

“51. The girl was not shivering in front of me. She was

certainly not wearing warm clothes. I was merely following the

R.G.’s instructions as I already explained above why the girl

was not rescued at night.”

54. If this is appreciated in the backdrop of the answer

elicited in Paragraph No.41, it is apparent that the witness is

not speaking the truth. In Paragraph No.41, as extracted by

the I.O., it is stated that “the girl came to his house and rang

the doorbell at 7:30 PM and he gave her food”, implying

thereby the incident occurred in the night and he interacted

with the girl. In Paragraph No.51 to a question asking why he

did not immediately make efforts to rescue the minor child,

he would reply “I was merely following the RG’s instructions”,

implying thereby that P.W.1 was in conversation with the

then Registrar General regarding this issue even prior to 7:30

PM, but in his answers to preceding paragraphs, he would

49

present a picture that he went into a conversation with the

Registrar General only after the girl’s visit and that apart, the

reliance placed on the statement of P.W.3 to lay weight with

the version of P.W.1, is unsustainable. P.W.3 has made a

categorical statement that the alleged incident was narrated

to him on the next day at 10:15 AM, implying thereby that

P.W.3 was not an eye-witness, but merely a hearsay witness.

55. The discussion in Paragraph No.56 regarding the

head injury is an admitted fact where P.W.2 has also given

the manner, in which, she suffered the injury. In Paragraph

Nos.57 and 58, the Inquiry Officer has relied on, and referred

to the statement recorded under Section 164, to hold in

Paragraph Nos.59 and 60 that the incident did occur. This

conclusion drawn on the basis that P.W.3 did not inquire

about the head injury because he was already informed,

appears to be farfetched and in the light of P.W.1’s answer to

question Nos.36, which clearly shows that he used to see the

girl on or off standing near the gate. The distance of the both

gates are adjacent to each other and also his source of

information through a Class IV employee in the petitioner’s

house. The presence of the wound and the manner, in which,

it has occurred, as deposed by P.W.2 does not get

discredited.

50

56. The elaboration and dissection appears to be to

somehow establish the fact that the petitioner was starving

and assaulting the minor child. It would not be out of place to

refer to the blood test report, which records the hemoglobin

count of the child as 11 Mg, which is the normal average for

women. This, coupled with the fact that the examining doctor

did not even prescribed any supplements, much less,

hospitalization, would go a long way to negate the approach

and the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer.

57. A reading of Paragraph Nos.65 and 66 would go to

show that the Inquiry Officer has simply accepted the

statement of P.W.1 as the gospel truth without even blinking

an eye. The Inquiry Officer does not find it strange that the

then Registrar General/ Registrar General (In-charge) have

attempted to activate/ direct the District Judge through an

officer subordinate to him. This very fact ought to have

enthused the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) to seek for corroboration.

We say so because the then Registrar General/ Registrar

General (In-charge) have not been examined, neither has any

corroborative material in the form of CDRs/ e-mail’s produced

by P.W.1 to establish or prove the fact of his telephonic

conversation with the aforesaid two officers. We say so in

view of the answers elicited from P.W.3 to Questions 17, 18,

19, 32, 89, 90 and 91, and the conclusion in Paragraph No.68

that the depositions establish the exchange of phone calls

51

between P.W.1 and the then Registrar General/ Registrar

General (In-charge) is not supported by any material except

for the oral deposition. The Inquiry Officer ought to have

sought for corroboration in the light of the allegations of

malafides alleged against P.W.1 by the petitioner/ delinquent

officer.

58. The discussion of the evidence and the arguments

with regard to the IP address and identification of the e-mail

user, leaves us to infer that the Inquiry Officer is trying to

make out a case which even the department has not

attempted to rebut. The Inquiry Officer even goes to the

extent of calling the information obtained as an intrusion into

the privacy of the e-mail ID user and the authoritative

findings that information is available with the service provider

only for a year without examining the service provider or the

information provider, leaves us with no option but to draw an

inference that the Inquiry Officer has adopted a protectionist

approach. As rightly argued by the Presenting Officer, that

the Departmental Inquiry is not one for demonstration of

accusation of the charge beyond reasonable doubt but by

preponderance of probabilities, yet the burden of rebutting

the evidence produce, squarely lies on the Department, in

which the Department has miserably failed.

52

59. It is painful to see the approach adopted by the

Inquiry Officer. In fact, if the conclusions drawn are to be

appreciated meaningfully, the Inquiry Officer is virtually

charging the delinquent officer with fabrication of documents

or forgery. If that was the case, then we are left wondering

why such a charge or allegation was not made by the

department in black and white, for then, the delinquent

officer would have had the opportunity to rebut the same.

Despite the allegation and despite questions being put to

P.W.1, and despite P.W.1 being accused of generating the e-

mail ID and the complaint, we see that neither P.W.1, nor the

Departmental Representative attempting to place on record

any evidence to controvert the material documentary

evidence placed by the petitioner. In fact, in Paragraph

No.122, the Inquiry Officer concludes that the purported

information 366/2 is an unauthenticated, fabricated, false and

forged document made illegally by police in absence of any

such information provided by rediffmail itself, and by going

out of their way and beyond the power and jurisdiction of

police. The analysis “all the above given circumstances points

towards one conclusion” that the purported information 366/2

and by going out of their way and beyond the power and

jurisdiction of police so as to provide undue benefit to Ms.

Deepali Sharma under her undue influence” is absolutely a

conjecture with no material whatsoever and accepting the

53

argument as the gospel truth. The Inquiry Officer in

Paragraph No.123 pronounces the document as fabricated

and forged, without there being any basis and without there

being any fact-check with the service provider or the

authority that provided the documents. This despite the

employer having reserved a right to itself to summon any

witnesses during the enquiry.

60. In Paragraph No.124, the Inquiry Officer has held

that there is no absence of any cogent and reliable evidence

forgetting the admission by P.W.1 that the phone number is

registered in the name of his wife and despite there being a

clear-cut digital proof. The Inquiry Officer ought to have

probed further into the footprint that electronic mode of

communication leaves. In fact, the Inquiry Officer ought to

have put the burden on the Department to produce details of

the identity of the complainant, and should have inferred

adversely against the Department for having failed to prove

the ID of the sender of e-mail. More so, in the light of the fact

that the petitioner was alleging malafides from the very initial

stage, i.e. on the date the raid was conducted, i.e.

29.01.2018 where it was admitted by P.W.3 that the

petitioner/ delinquent officer had entered into the SSP’s room

and directly accused P.W.1 of joining hands with the then

Registrar General/ Registrar General (In-charge) to conspire

and finish her career. She not being the recipient of the e-

54

mail, certainly onus could not have been cast on her. Be the

case of preponderance of probabilities, condemning the

evidence placed by the delinquent officer/ petitioner without

any controverting material and even without examining the

concerned authorities or even without seeking a clarification

from the concerned authorities, is unknown to service

jurisprudence and that too, when the Inquiry Officer desires

to conclude that the delinquent officer or any other person

has committed an act which constitutes a punishable offence

under the penal code and relevant statutes.

61. That apart, the detailed discussion on the above

issue befuddles us. The onus was on the department to prove

the charge under the charge-memo and a charge regarding

the commission of forgery is not before the Inquiry Officer.

This digression and laborious approach and thesis was wholly

unwarranted in the background of the charges that had been

framed and that alone were required to be proved.

62. At the most, the findings would only negate the

charge of malafides raised against the defence. Alternatively,

the Inquiry Officer has lost herself in the labyrinth created by

the witness on both sides. In Paragraph Nos.126 to 176, the

Inquiry Officer has dealt with the claim of conspiracy and

enmity raised by the petitioner/ delinquent officer. This

exercise is nothing, but a repetition of the issue dealt with by

55

the Inquiry Officer in Paragraph Nos.70 to 125. Though, we

desire to say something about the approach of the Inquiry

Officer, we desist from doing so, as the Inquiry Officer is not

a party before us and is not heard and with a hope of giving a

quietus and restore normalcy in the deeply divided unit.

63. The distinction drawn in Paragraph No.180 that no

inquiry of the complainant need be made, or no inquiry

regarding the identity of the complainant need be made, is in

our opinion, preposterous. It is an admitted fact that the

petitioner was living in a secured compound, known as

Judges’ Colony and where third parties, except permitted

persons, had no access. This admitted factual position has

neither been gone into nor appreciated while going into the

issues as to whether P.W.1 generated the e-mail or while

dealing with the conspiracy angle. It was not anybody’s case

that the mobile number registered in the name of P.W.1’s

wife and used by his father-in-law at Dehradun was made

known to the petitioner by P.W.1. The information about the

phone number having been furnished to her by the very same

police authorities, the Inquiry Officer has ignored the

significant fact.

64. The Inquiry Officer has also not concluded that the

complainant is an anonymous person and identity

untraceable. As observed by us, electronic modes of

56

communication leave indelible footprints. The postponement

of identifying the sender despite the request of the petitioner

has also not been appreciated. The Inquiry Officer has also

not appreciated her own order dated 07.02.2020 whereby

while rejecting the prayer to summon the SSP Haridwar to

submit a report from the Cyber Crime Cell, had reserved

liberty to the petitioner to procure it and submit the same

herself. The reasoning if viewed in the backdrop of this order,

renders the reasoning perverse and wholly unsustainable. As

noted by us, it is not even the contention of the Presenting

Officer that the documents produced by the petitioner are

fabricated or forged. If such a submission was made, it would

have given grounds for action against the Presenting Officer.

65. The Inquiry Officer has also failed to appreciate the

representation of the petitioner/ delinquent officer seeking an

inquiry on the administrative side to establish the identity of

the anonymous complainant, and which request came be

disposed of by the then Registrar General vide order dated

17.07.2020 that the same would be considered on the

conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The Inquiry Officer

also failed to appreciate the further effort of the petitioner

dated 15.10.2020 whereby the petitioner once again

reminded the High Court of her request dated 17.07.2020,

and which was met with the response “no note was prepared

on the letter dated 15.10.2020” and which response was

57

secured by her under the RTI. That apart, we are unable to

appreciate the attempt of the Inquiry Officer to discredit the

document emanating from the office of a high ranking officer

of the stature of SSP, who is the head of the police force in

the district and whose office played a prominent role in the

“raid” and initiation of prosecution of the petitioner.

66. In that view, the findings on the issue discussed in

Paragraph Nos.70 to 176 does not inspire confidence in the

Court and we are constrained to infer a biased approach.

67. From Paragraph No.177, the Inquiry Officer

commences the discussion on the complaint. The observation

in Paragraph No.182 that no responsible citizen may report

the commission of any offence leaves us flummoxed. The

further elaboration that anonymity of the complainant does

not affect the gravity of the offence reflects a bias in the mind

of the Inquiry Officer. We perceive a sense of pre-

determination and same has resulted in a “moral conviction”.

68. The reliance on Section 125 of the Indian Evidence

Act leaves us amazed. Neither the High Court, nor the Inquiry

Officer are either a Magistrate or a Police Officer or a Revenue

Officer and the inquiry is a statutorily sanctioned

administrative act. The precursor to this reliance can be seen

at the very commencement of the report where the Inquiry

Officer has persistently referred to the department as

58

prosecution, in our considered opinion, the presumption is ill-

founded.

69. The Inquiry Officer cannot approbate or reprobate.

In one breath, the Inquiry Officer proceeds and relies on

preponderance of probabilities and while on the other hand,

the Inquiry Officer does call for proof beyond reasonable

doubt on the part of the petitioner, and holds otherwise when

the burden shifts on to the department, on the short ground

of Section 125. The efforts of the petitioner on the

administrative side and the reluctance on the part of the

department to investigate the identity of the complainant

have been brushed aside and the issue is concluded

summarily. It is also interesting to note that the conclusion is

only with regard to the identity of the complainant. The great

length to which the department concerned have gone to

protect or not to secure the identity of the sender leaves us

wondering if there is more to it than meets the eye and

demonstrate a biased approach.

70. In Paragraph No.187, the Inquiry Officer

commences discussion about the minor victim. In Paragraph

No.190 onwards, the charge against the petitioner/

delinquent officer and frames five points for discussion which

are as under:-

59

“1. Was the girl Tanuja @Tiruja Dani a minor at the

time of her rescue and at the time when she was first

kept by Mrs. Deepali Sharma?

2. Whether the girl Tanuja @Tiruja Dani was taken

by Mrs. Deepali Sharma with her as a domestic servant?

3. Whether the girl visited the house of Mr. Kanwar

Amninder Singh on 28.1.18 and asked him for food, and

whether any food was provided to her by Mr. Kanwar

Amninder Singh?

(This point has already been dealt with in the preceding pages

of this report. The finding has been affirmative.)

4. What were the Injuries found on the body of the

girl Tanuja @Tiruja Dani at the time of her medical

examination on 29.1.2018 and the nature thereof?

5. Whether the girl Tanuja @Tiruja Dani was beaten

up, ill treated and tortured by Mrs. Deepali Sharma

during the time she used to live with Mrs. Deepali

Sharma?”

71. With regard to Point No.3, the Inquiry Officer

concludes that it has already been held in the affirmative that

the girl had visited the house of P.W.1 and asked for food.

The reasoning of the Inquiry Officer in Paragraph No.197 to

discard the statement recorded during the inquiry leaves us

self-shocked and wonder in disbelief. The reasoning assigned

is that the statements made by P.W.1 and the statement

recorded on 29.01.2018 in the SSP’s office and the statement

recorded under Section 164 are to be believed because the

petitioner/ delinquent officer was not around, but the

statement recorded in the inquiry and the answers elicited in

the cross-examination during the inquiry are to disbelieved

60

because the petitioner/ delinquent officer was present. This

reasoning, in our considered opinion, is convoluted one, as

the fact remains that both P.W.3 and P.W.5 have clearly

admitted that the statement alleged to have been made by

the “victim” in the SSP’s office has not been recorded. The

presence of the petitioner is not by design, but on account of

the mandate of the Inquiry Officer. It is the Inquiry Officer

who has fixed the time and place and the requirement of the

petitioner to be present. It is not the case of the Inquiry

Officer that the petitioner was asked to remove herself during

the examination of the witnesses P.W.2 and despite such

prohibition, she refused and planted herself before the victim.

There is not even a whisper in the report recording any

intimidatory action or gestures on the part of the petitioner.

There is not even a whisper about the victim having come to

the inquiry after a prolonged detention in an orphanage, i.e.

between 29.01.2018 to 15.05.2018. As claimed by the victim

she was under the constant guard and scrutiny of two police

constables and CCTV cameras. Apart from stating that the

victim changed the stance, there is no reasoning as to why

the victim should change the stance. It, in fact, defies logic. If

the victim had been so terrorized or so utterly frightened or

scared by the petitioner, at least, the parents would have, on

coming to know the real facts of torture inflicted on their child

61

made a complaint and the child would have spoken about the

alleged torture.

72. That apart, if an innocent child is inflicted such

grievous wounds, in the words of the Presiding Officer

“attacked with the knife”, then any child if given an

opportunity, would have certainly complained of the same, on

the contrary, the material on record in the form of admission

and in the form of transcript and in the form of video

recordings, categorically disproves this conclusion rendering it

perverse and unsustainable. The conclusion is against the

weight of evidence that stares at us. In one line, crucial

admissions elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4

and P.W.5 and other witnesses examined during the Inquiry,

have been wished away by the Inquiry Officer, which is

impermissible in law. Every attempt has been made to

demonize the petitioner.

73. It is pertinent to extract the record of evidence in

support of our observations.

Deposition alleging ill-treatment of the child

P.W.1:- 2. I informed Mr. Anuj Kumar Sangal that I had no

personal knowledge of this matter and had only seen a young girl from

a distance at Mrs. Deepali Sharma's residence . I had not personally

seen her up close, nor had any personal knowledge of her; I had only

heard that she was being beaten. Following this, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sangal

did not ask me any further questions about this matter, and our

conversation ended. (underline by this Court)

3. On January 28, 2018, around 7:30 p.m., the doorbell rang at

my residence. I went outside and saw the same girl who lived at Mrs.

Deepali Sharma's house standing outside the door. She said, "Uncle,

please give me something to eat. I haven't eaten anything since

morning. I'm very hungry, and I had a head injury." I noticed that the

62

girl had a thin scarf wrapped around her head and was not wearing very

warm clothes. I gave her some food, and she took it away, and she

said, "Uncle, please don't tell Madam." By "Madam," the girl meant Mrs.

Deepali Sharma.

4 - Since Mr. Anuj Kumar Sangal had inquired about this matter

that same day, I thought it appropriate to call Mr. Anuj Kumar Sangal

and inform him that the girl you were inquiring me about had just

arrived at my residence a short while ago. I informed Mr. Anuj Kumar

Sangal about the events described in paragraph 3 above. Mr. Anuj

Kumar Sangal instructed me to call Mr. Narendra Dutt, the then

Registrar General of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court, and inform

him of this matter. Accordingly, I called Mr. Narendra Dutt, the then

Registrar General of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court, and informed

him of the facts described in paragraph 3 and my conversation with Mr.

Anuj Kumar Sangal. Mr. Narendra Dutt, the Registrar General,

instructed me to keep the matter confidential and would issue a further

order the following morning. (emphasis by this Court).

74. From the reading of the above, it is apparent that

despite having observed the minor girl from close, the

witness does not speak of having observed any injury.

P.W.1 (7). Subsequently, around 2:45-3:00, the Hon’ble District

Judge, Haridwar, myself, C.O. Sadar/A.S.P. Ms. Rachita Juyal, and a

police team led by Rachita Juyal, including several Lady Sub-Inspectors

and Lady Constables, an Inspector, two Constables for videography, and

Probation Officer Ashok Kumar, arrived at Mrs. Deepali Sharma's official

residence, G-10, Judges Colony, Roshnabad, Haridwar. Prior to this, the

Hon’ble District Judge had asked to find out whether Mrs. Deepali

Sharma was present. When we arrived at Mrs. Deepali Sharma's

residence, we found the girl mentioned above standing near the gate.

The District Judge told the girl to call Madam (Mrs. Deepali Sharma).

Mrs. Deepali Sharma emerged from the residence about 5-7 minutes

later. By that time, we had all been standing inside the compound of the

residence, waiting for Mrs. Deepali Sharma. When the District Judge

asked the girl in question her name, she gave her name as Tanuja alias

Tiruja, her age as 14, and stated that she had been working with Mrs.

Deepali Sharma for about three years. A physical examination of the girl

revealed numerous new and old injuries on her body. She appeared

very weak. When we arrived at Mrs. Deepali Sharma's residence, she

was standing near the gate, wearing a black sleeveless frock and a pair

of pajamas that reached her ankles. She was wearing neither slippers

nor socks, nor a cap on her head. Both of her feet were swollen, and

there appeared to be an infection between her toes. The female team

members briefly examined the girl's injuries on the spot, noting some of

the injuries were new on her head and a small amount of blood had

clotted in her hair. (emphasis by this Court).

75. From a reading of the above, it can be safely

deduced that P.W.1 became aware of the injuries only after

the inspection at about 03:00 PM.

(P.W.3) 1. On January 29, 2018, I was serving as District Judge,

Haridwar. That day, at approximately 10:15 a.m., Shri Kanwar

Amninder Singh, then First Additional District Judge, Haridwar, came to

63

my rest room. At that time, I was attending to my administrative work

when he said, "Sir, please finish this quickly, there's something urgent."

After I finished my administrative work, I asked Mr. Kanwar Amninder

Singh what the matter was. He explained that the Registrar General and

Registrar of Infrastructure from the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand,

Nainital, had informed me that a minor girl was working as a maid at

the home of Mrs. Deepali Sharma, a Civil Judge in the District Judge

Colony, and that she was being severely abused by Mrs. Deepali

Sharma. Kanwar Amninder Singh also informed me that yesterday

evening, at around 7:30 p.m., the girl who worked at Mrs. Deepali

Sharma's home came to Kanwar Amninder Singh's residence and told

him, "Uncle, I'm hungry, please feed me." He offered her food, and the

girl told him not to tell her madam about this, or she would beat her.

(emphasis supplied by this Court).

76. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that

P.W.1 had informed PW3 that the girl was being severely

abused, but P.W.1, in his deposition, states that he had only

seen the girl from a distance, though and he does not speak

about any injuries, even when the girl had come to his

doorstep. He further does not depose about the threat of

beating but P.W.3 deposes that P.W.1 informed him so.

77. In Para 9, P.W.1 deposes as under:-

(9). Using his discretion, the Hon’ble District Judge directed that

the girl be rescued and kept in a safe place. After this, a memo was also

prepared on the spot in this regard. The girl was first rescued and

brought to the rest room attached to the chamber of SSP Haridwar

where sofas etc. were present and there the girl Tanuja alias Tiruja

was verbally questioned by the Hon’ble District Judge and the girl

told that she has been working at the house of Madam Mrs. Deepali

Sharma for the last 3 years and she (Tanuja) is beaten and abused by

Madam Mrs. Deepali Sharma, is not given adequate food and

sometimes, food is not given for several days.

78. From a reading of the above, it can be inferred that

PW1 has deposed that the girl was verbally questioned by the

District Judge, i.e. P.W.3, affirming that there is no written

record of the statements made by P.W.2 and which is

64

admitted by P.W.3 and P.W.5. P.W.3 has deposed as

under:-

8. Meanwhile, Rachita Juyal, ASP, began questioning the

minor girl. Meanwhile, Mrs. Deepali Sharma arrived and objected,

stating that no one should question the minor girl in her absence. We

countered, stating that we would call her when she was needed. Upon

arrival at the Senior Superintendent of Police's office, Mrs. Deepali

Sharma explained that Kanwar Amninder Singh had been sent to

Haridwar to sabotage her career, and that Kanwar Amninder Singh and

Mr. Narendra Dutt, the Registrar General, were behind this. At the SSP's

office, the girl complained that she was not given food, upon which she

was first fed biscuits and tea. Subsequently, the minor, Kumari Tanuja,

was sent to the Harmilap District Hospital, Haridwar, for a medical

examination. The doctor conducted a medical examination, and she was

placed in the custody of members of the Child Welfare Committee,

Haridwar.

79. P.W.3 in Para 8 of his deposition has stated

“…………I do not recall what Rachita Juyal told me when she

inquired about the wounds on Ms. Tanuja's head and arms, as

she had taken Ms. Tanuja to be questioned separately for

counseling purposes. I did not question Ms. Tanuja at the

Senior Superintendent of Police's office………..”

80. Thus, P.W.3 controverts P.W.1 about having

questioned the girl and these contradictions are in the

examination-in-chief itself.

81. Now, with regard to availability of primary

witnesses, who ought to have been examined and who have

been ignored deliberately or otherwise, it is necessary to

examine the evidence of P.W.1. In the cross-examination, in

Para 14 and 15, he has categorically deposed that the 3-4

large trees and bamboo fencing prevented anyone from

viewing the petitioner’s house from his house, implying and

65

admitting thereby that he could not have seen the petitioner

physically abusing the girl, but interestingly, he has nowhere

stated that he has ever heard the girl cry out or scream in

pain, which would have been a natural consequence and

reaction of any child who “is being stabbed with the knife,

inflicted burn injuries, hit on the head with the bronze statue

etc.”. This aspect assumes importance as P.W.1 admits in

Para 36 and 37 of his cross-examination as under:-

“36. I told Anuj Kumar Sangal that I had seen the girl a few

times, but I did not have any personal knowledge of whether she was

being beaten or not. I had seen the girl a few times when I was driving

in my car and I saw her standing near the gate of G-10. I didn't pay

much heed to whether the girl was working or just standing around. I

told her that I had heard about the girl being beaten. I had heard this

from Class IV employees. The Class IV employees from whom I heard

this were Mrs. Deepali Sharma's Peons; their names were Prahlad Singh

and another, whose name I don't remember at this time.

(emphasis supplied)

Question: Did these two come to tell you?

Answer: In June 2017, Mrs. Deepali Sharma had a fight with the

two Peons regarding her leave. Mrs. Deepali Sharma may have told me,

and these two Peons also came to me, saying, "We don't want to work

for Madam." I persuaded them to return to their duties, telling them to

adjust and share duties among themselves. During that time, they also

mentioned the girl being beaten, but I didn't take any action.

(emphasis supplied)

37. I did not find it necessary to inform the District Judge that the

girl working at Deepali Sharma's house was being beaten up. I myself

said that because the two Peons were very angry with Mrs. Deepali

Sharma and I thought about my judicial officer that perhaps the Peons

were deliberately speaking.”

82. From the reading of the above, it is apparent that

he was informed about the girl being beaten by the two Class

IV employees attached to the residence of the petitioner and

in fact, named one of them as Prahlad Singh and that this

information is alleged to have been given to him in June,

2017 itself, despite that, he had never heard the girl

screaming in pain. It is also interesting to note that he has

66

not deposed that he had seen the girl appearing sad or

crying. Thus, the crucial fact that can be deduced from the

above is that there was not one but two eye-witnesses to the

alleged act of the petitioner beating the child, but for reasons

best known, these eye-witnesses have neither been

produced, nor examined by the Presenting Officer, nor did the

Inquiry Officer deem it necessary to summon these ‘eye-

witnesses’, despite they being named by P.W.1. In fact,

P.W.3 in Para 14 of his cross-examination also recalls the

minor girl naming Prahlad Singh as one of the employees in

the house of the petitioner.

83. In Para 40, he furnishes the details of the other

judicial officers, who were residing in the compound and one

of them is ADJ Mr. Varun Kumar, who is said to have

recorded the statement of the minor girl on 30.01.2018, i.e.

after she was forcibly take away from the house of the

petitioner.

84. If the said ADJ Varun Kumar was a resident of the

compound, it can be safely presumed that he would be a

potential witness.

85. In Para 41 of the cross-examination, he yet again

reiterates the instance of the girl having come to his house

and having spent 4-5 minutes with her, he does not speak of

observed any injuries.

67

86. P.W.1 has deposed in Para 53 of his cross-

examination as under:-

“53. On January 29, 2018, I went to the District Judge,

Haridwar's chamber at around 10:30-10:45 AM. I received a call from

the Registrar General at about 10.00 - 10:15 AM, and he instructed me

to inform the District Judge. I do not know whether the District Judge

received the call from the Registrar General. I received the letter from

the Hon’ble High Court at around 1- 1:30 PM on January 29, 2018.

Between 10:30-10:45 AM and 1- 1:30 PM, I visited my chamber once to

sign some documents. The rest of the time, I remained in the District

Judge's chamber. I do not remember for how long or at what time I was

in my chamber. I was in my chamber for perhaps 10-15 minutes. I did

not work in court that day. The District Judge had given me verbal

instructions to stay with him. On January 29, 2018, I was to stay with

the District Judge and go to rescue the girl. This is mentioned in the

District Judge's Administrative Order No. 15 dated January 30, 2018.

The written order was not issued on January 29, 2018; it was issued on

January 30, 2018. On January 29, 2018, while I was in the District

Judge's chamber, no other judicial officer came to the chamber. As far

as I remember, the District Judge did not call any other judicial officer

to his chamber during that time. The CJM at that time was Mr. Ashutosh

Mishra.”

87. If this statement is juxtaposed with Para16, 17, 18

of P.W.3’s cross-examination, it is apparent that the District

Judge is contradicting his subordinate, i.e. ADJ (P.W.1). In

fact, in Para 20 of the cross-examination, P.W.3 nails and

contradicts P.W.1, who in his deposition has denied any

personal knowledge of the minor girl being used as a maid

servant or being physically harmed. In fact, in Para20, he

deposes that he was informed by P.W.1 at 10:15 AM itself

that a minor girl is being kept by the petitioner as a maid

servant and she was being abused and needed to be rescued

and in the preceding sentence he admits that he received the

fax and copy of the complaint at 2:36 PM afternoon only. In

Para 21, it is apparent that the SSP was called by P.W.3 on

the strength of the information given by P.W.1 at 10:15 AM.

68

This fact of having invited the police relying on the

information given by P.W.1 is confirmed by P.W.3 in the

answer recorded at Para 22. The conduct of P.W.1 and his

deposition does not inspire confidence. On the one hand, in

his deposition, he does not speak of having witnessed any

injury or ill-treatment of the minor girl, but, in his statement

to P.W.3 (the District Judge) made at 10:15 AM, P.W.1 has

made a categorical statement that the girl was forced to work

as a maid and was being physically abused by the petitioner.

88. Now, the pertinent question arises and the same

begs an answer.

“Was the child on the date of rescue, a minor?”

89. Evidence in the form of school records, ossification

test categorically demonstrate in no uncertain terms that the

girl was not a minor in the sense she was not aged less than

14 years and in fact, the ossification test describes her as

being aged about 17 years (Paper No.370/1). If that is so,

was the alleged rescue justified in law? Probably this is the

reason why no charge under Rule 3(4) was framed against

the petitioner.

90. Another interesting fact is that a detailed perusal of

the examination-in-chief of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5,

P.W.6 and P.W.7 does not reveal any deposition by any of the

witnesses asserting the age of the girl as being less than 14

69

years. That apart, none of the witnesses speak of having seen

the girl working as a maid servant prior to her having

completed the age of 14 years. In the absence of such

evidence, was the inquiry justified at all? It now becomes

apparent why violation of Rules 3(1) and 3(2) have been

invoked and it also becomes apparent as to why efforts have

been made to have the wound certificate proved. Whether

the physical assaults on the girl (assuming them to be true

for the sake of argument) would amount to contravention of

Rules 3(1) and 3 (2) of the Uttarakhand Government

Servants Conduct Rules, 2002 which speak of a requirement

to maintain integrity, devotion, behavior and conduct? In our

considered opinion, when no charge under Rule 3(4) having

been framed and as stated supra, no evidence having been

let in demonstrating her employment as a maid servant

before she completed the age of 14 years, the conclusions

drawn are wholly perverse and unsustainable. Not a single

witness has even whispered that they have witnessed the girl

being employed as a maid servant before she completed the

age of 14 years. Even the anonymous complainant does not

allege such a fact, yet the Inquiry Officer has concluded in

sub-para (13) of Paragraph 607 as under:-

“Mrs. Deepali Sharma was a Government Servant and a Judicial

Officer and still she employed a girl Tanuja @Tiruja Dani as a domestic

help, who was below 14 years of age at the time when in November,

2015, she was first kept for domestic work by Mrs. Deepali Sharma.”

The conclusion, in our considered opinion, is arbitrary, as none of the

70

witnesses have even whispered about the girl being kept as a domestic

servant in 2015.

91. In Paragraph 608, it is concluded as under:-

“The Delinquent Officer Mrs. Deepali Sharma was at the relevant

time employed as a Government Servant/ Judicial Officer and she was

duty bound to maintain at all times absolute integrity and devotion to

duty and at all times to conduct herself in accordance with the specific

or implied orders of Government regulating behaviour and conduct. She

was also duty bound to follow Rule 3(4) of the Uttarakhand Government

Servants Conduct Rules, 2002 which provides “No Government servant

will employ the children below the age of 14 years as domestic help”.

The Delinquent officer Mrs. Deepali Sharma violated Rule 3(1) and 3(2)

Uttarakhand Government Servants Conduct Rules, 2002 by not

maintaining the required integrity, devotion, behaviour and conduct, as

was required from her being a Government Servant/ Judicial Officer.”

92. The conclusion in Para 608 holding that the

misconduct under Rules 3(1) and (2) of the Rules, 2002 stand

proved because the delinquent officer has failed to follow Rule

3(4) is to state the least, perverse. As noted in the preceding

paragraphs, no charge under Rule 3(4) has been levelled. In

the absence of even a charge holding that such a misconduct

is proved, is not only alien to service jurisprudence but also

absolutely vitiates the finding that the charge under Rules

3(1) and 3(2) stand proved.

93. The conclusion is vitiated, as no shred of evidence

is placed either before the Inquiry Officer, nor deposed by

any of the witnesses in the course of the inquiry. The

conclusion is vitiated by perversity as the Inquiry Officer is

neither the employer/ disciplinary authority, nor the inquiry

officer has framed the charge alleging misconduct in terms of

Rule 3(4). It is settled law that conjectures and surmises do

not take the place of evidence and are not proof of a fact.

71

94. That apart, the reasons assigned to cast aside the

numerous rulings relied upon by the petitioner reveals a

predetermination and a bent of mind to somehow reject the

rulings on flimsy and presumptuous grounds.

95. At this stage, it is necessary to examine the

admissions and depositions by various witnesses which

clearly make out a case in favour of the petitioner and while

so doing, we are in fact not even relying upon the evidence of

D.W.3- the petitioner, whose 48 paragraphs examination-in-

chief has been met with the 222 questions in cross-

examination resulting in not even a single admission adverse

to the case canvassed by the petitioner.

96. We rely on the admissions by the ‘prosecution

witnesses’.

P.W.1 (Para 40) It is correct to say that other judicial officers,

Mr. Varun Kumar, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Payal Singh, and Ms.

Rithika Semwal, also lived opposite my and Deepali Sharma's

residences.

Para 51. Question: The girl was unwell, was wearing minimal

clothing during the winter, was shivering and hungry. Why it was not

considered appropriate to rescue her at night?

Answer: The girl was not shivering in front of me; she was

certainly not wearing warm clothes. I was merely following the Registrar

General's instructions. As I have already explained above, why the girl

was not rescued at night.

Question: Were you prohibited by the Registrar General from

rescuing the girl at night, or was this your own decision?

Answer: I was unable to make the decision myself. The Registrar

General, after considering all aspects, requested that I keep this matter

confidential for the time being, and that further orders would be issued

by him on January 29, 2018.

Para 59. I did not tell the District Judge that I should not be

included in the team because I had prior knowledge of the case. I stated

that I followed the instructions from the District Judge. It is correct to

say that there was no female Judicial Officer in this team. I stated that

the police team was led by a female officer, Ms. Rachita Juyal. At that

time, apart from Deepali Sharma, there were between three to five

female Judicial Officers posted at the District Court, Haridwar. Before

72

going to the scene, I read the order from the Hon’ble High Court, which

the District Judge had read to me. It is correct to say that the order did

not specifically directed that the police shall be taken along. Our visit to

the scene and recovery of the girl was an administrative task.

Para 60. There was no specific order from the Hon’ble High

Court that the girl be recovered and handed over. He himself stated that

the Hon’ble High Court, in the letter in question, directed the police to

verify the statements in the complaint/e-mail on the spot and take

legal/legal action, and the decision to take legal action on the spot was

left to the discretion of the Hon’ble District Judge.

Para 62. After the girl's recovery, the police produced her

before the Child Welfare Committee, and the Child Welfare Committee

sent her to Shri Ram Ashram. The Chairperson of the Child Welfare

Committee and a female member were present at the hospital during

the girl's medical examination, as the Child Welfare Committee's

Probation Officer was part of the recovery team. The police likely

produced the girl before the Child Welfare Committee at the hospital. I

recall that the girl was produced before the Child Welfare Committee at

the hospital.

Question: Under what provision was the girl sent to the Shri Ram

Ashram by the Child Welfare Committee?

Answer: The Shri Ram Ashram is a registered home, and she was

sent to the Shri Ram Ashram for the girl's safety and well-being. I do

not recall under which specific provision of the Juvenile Justice Act,

2015, the Child Welfare Committee sent the girl to the Shri Ram

Ashram.

Para 63. Question: Did you, as the District Judge in-charge, write

a letter on February 19, 2018, requesting the filing a case against

Deepali Sharma?

Answer: As the District Judge in-charge, I wrote a letter to the

SSP, Haridwar, but I do not recall whether I requested the filing of a

criminal case against Deepali Sharma.

64. Question: Did you state in that letter that necessary action

shall be taken and I should be informed immediately, and the letter

number was 180/XV-2018?

Answer: I do not recall all the statements in the letter in question

at this stage.

65. My statements under Section 161 of the CrPC were recorded

in the criminal case filed against Deepali Sharma. I do not recall

whether I stated in those statements that I should be informed

immediately and that action should be taken immediately. The witness

was shown his statement under Section 161 CrPC, which is as follows:

"Thereafter, on 19.2.2018, as the District Judge in charge, I

wrote a letter No. 180/XV-2018 to the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Haridwar, requesting him to take necessary action in light of the letter

sent by the Hon’ble High Court and inform him immediately of the

action taken. Subsequently, a case was filed in this matter." The witness

replied that this letter was written in accordance with the language of

the above letter, in light of the letter sent by the Hon’ble High Court.

66. Question: Did the Hon’ble High Court direct you to write such

a letter to the SSP, Haridwar?

Answer: The Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court sent a letter stating

that, in light of certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the

police are competent to take legal action in the case in question. It was

in light of the Hon’ble High Court's letter that I wrote the letter to the

SSP. A copy of the letter in question from the Hon’ble High Court was

also forwarded to the District Judge, Haridwar.

Question: Is it true that you wrote the above letter to the SSP

outside your jurisdiction, and that you had no instructions to write such

a letter?

Answer: This statement is incorrect.

67. I do not remember whether the promotion proceedings for

some of Deepali Sharma's staff were underway at that time. I do not

recall whether Deepali Sharma wrote any letters to the Hon'ble High

73

Court regarding her promotion and whether I, as the District Judge in-

charge, forwarded them to the Hon'ble High Court. I do not recall

whether Deepali Sharma wrote any letter to the Hon'ble High Court on

20.1.2018 through the District Judge, Haridwar, regarding her

promotion and whether I, as the District Judge in-charge, forwarded

them to the Hon'ble High Court, as this is an old matter. It has been a

long time, and I do not remember whether I was serving as the District

Judge in-charge on 20.1.2018. It has been a long time, so I do not

remember whether I read the letter sent by Deepali Sharma as the

acting District Judge.

Question: We are asking whether you, as the acting District

Judge, read the letter sent by Deepali Sharma to the Hon’ble High Court

on January 20, 2018, in which Deepali Sharma detailed the

discrepancies in her promotion.

Answer: It is surprising that specific statements are being made

regarding a matter of my personal knowledge. I have already stated

that due to the passage of time, I do not remember whether I read the

above letter on January 20, 2018.

68. Question: Whose mobile number is 9897787999?

Answer: This is my wife's mobile number.

69. I don't know if my mother or my wife knew that the girl lived

in Deepali Sharma's house.

Question: Does the anonymous email/complaint sent to the

Hon’ble High Court on January 10, 2018, at 9:36 p.m., relate to you,

your wife, or any member of your family?

Answer: These allegations are completely false, baseless, and

deliberately made. The email in question had no connection to me or

any member of my family.

71. On the day of the incident, I was accompanied by Peons

named Mr. Ramkaran and Mr. Sheeshpal in my court.

75. Question: Did you sit in your court chamber till late night and

call the CWC member and the Juvenile Court's APO and repeatedly give

instructions regarding that girl child that she should be kept in the

shelter home for as long as possible?

Answer: It is wrong to say that I used to sit in my court chamber

till late night and call the CWC member and the Juvenile Court's APO

and repeatedly give instructions regarding that girl child that she should

be kept in the shelter home for as long as possible.

97. If the above answers are to be summarized, one

can safely infer that neither P.W.1 nor any of his family

members have witnessed the alleged abuse, beating of the

minor girl. Secondly, it can further be inferred that the

petitioner and P.W.1 did not share a cordial relationship.

Thirdly, apart from petitioner and P.W.1, four other judicial

officers were residing in the same compound and in fact, one

Ms. Ritika Semwal, Judicial Magistrate/ Chairperson Juvenile

Justice Board, was residing right opposite the petitioner’s

house. Fourthly, it can be inferred that there is no

74

corroboration of P.W.1’s claim that the minor child visited his

house on 28.01.2018 at 7:30 PM, despite P.W.2 the very girl

refuting the claim. In Para 41, he claims that the peon

Ramkaran was at home along with him, but he is not

examined to prove such critical claim. Fifthly, it can be safely

inferred that the girl child was used to the Haridwar cold. This

we say so in view of the admission in Para 51 where P.W.1

has admitted that despite the time of the visit being 7:30 PM

in the evening, and despite the girl not wearing warm clothes,

she was not shivering. Sixthly, it can be inferred that the

decision to forcibly remove the girl was taken in the morning

itself, even before the directions from the High Court could be

received. Seventhly, it can be safely concluded that there was

no direction by the High Court to engage the police and that

too, officers of the rank of SSP and ASP and armed battalion

for the purpose of alleged ‘rescue’. Nextly, it has come out

that no female judicial officer was accompanying the District

Judge during his visit to the house of another lady judicial

officer, despite five other lady judicial officers being posted in

the said Court. Nextly, it is admitted by P.W.1 that there was

no order to recover and handover the child. A reading of Para

62 would demonstrate that CWC proceedings were conducted

in the hospital itself and the child was sent to an Ashram and

not to a registered home. Despite Question 62, no material

has been placed to demonstrate that the Ashram is registered

75

under the Act of 2015 as mandated under Section 41, nor

does the order appear to be in compliance with Section 37.

The answers in Questions 63, 64, 65 and 66 would give a

picture that P.W.1’s actions reveal something more than

discharge of official duties. It has been elicited that the

mobile number used to generate the mail ID belongs to

P.W.1’s wife. The denial of P.W.1 to Question 75 is

contradicted by P.W.4 by his admissions recorded in Para 19,

20 and 22.

98. Reading of the above paragraphs would clearly

show that P.W.1 was more than interested in the case which

appears to be beyond the call of the duty.

99. We now proceed to appreciate the evidence of

P.W.2.

Para 3. On January 28, 2018, I did not go anywhere in the

neighborhood from Mrs. Deepali Sharma's house. On January 29, 2018,

our neighbors, A.D.J. Uncle and Rachita Madam, and several other

people I did not know, came to Mrs. Deepali Sharma's house. When

they arrived, they asked me what had happened. I told them that

nothing had happened to me. I was living very well there. They were

there with cameras. Rachita Madam was holding my hand, so I did not

know what had happened.

5. That day, I was taken from Madam's house to the police office.

The ASP, Rachita Madam, the ADJ uncle, and several others were

present. They had my father speak to me. I told him that Madam hadn't

done anything to me, but they had brought me here, wondering what I

should do. Mrs. Deepali Madam had come there, but as soon as she

arrived, Rachita Madam had me moved to another room. She gave me

biscuits to eat. After eating the biscuits, I was taken to the hospital.

There, I was asked how I got these injuries. I explained that I was

playing with Ananya Didi and falling from a guava tree. I don't know

how to ride a bicycle. I was learning to ride it and that's when I got

injured. The doctor there examined my injuries and prepared the

papers. At that time, I had a scratch on my head because something

had fallen on it before. After that, I was taken to the Ashram.

6. Rachita Madam recorded my statement in the court. I didn't

say anything there; whatever I had to say, I had said it at Madam's

house. Mr. Varun recorded my statement. Rachita Madam was also

present when Varun Sir was recording it, and she told me everything. I

76

even signed the statement. I myself stated that I had asked Rachita

Madam to read it for me. Rachita Madam refused and asked me to sign.

7. After giving my statement, I went straight to the Ashram,

where I stayed for three and a half months.

8. During my stay with Mrs. Deepali Sharma in Haridwar, Mrs.

Deepali Sharma's behavior toward me was fair. I was not assaulted.

9. At this stage, the prosecution's application was accepted and

the prosecution was allowed to cross-examine the witness.

10. I studied in two schools in Haridwar. In one school, the

teacher enrolled me in Class 8 at the Government Primary School,

Roshanabad, where I secured first place. The school was open until

Class 7, after which the teacher enrolled me in another school. I told the

teacher that I would go to school occasionally, and she said, "Beta

(child), you'll go to school every day." I said this because the school was

far away, and I told her that I would study at home. I was taught by

Ananya Didi (Mrs. Deepali Sharma's daughter), her mother also taught,

and on holidays, the teacher also taught. Since this happened two

months before the exam, I was unable to appear for the exam.

11. I do not know Ritika Semwal Madam. I never went to Ritika

Semwal Madam's place to ask for food. It is incorrect to say that I went

to Ritika Semwal Madam's place to ask for food or that I ate there, and

today I am denying this. I used to get a full meal at Madam Mrs.

Deepali Sharma's place. I could have taken food from her kitchen.

12. I never went to Mr. Kanwar Amninder Singh's place to ask for

food. It is incorrect to say that I went to Kanwar Amninder Singh's place

on January 28, 2018 to ask for food or that I even ate there.

13. On the day of the incident, I had scratches on my hand and

was riding a bicycle. I fell while riding, injuring the left side of my

forehead. The scratches on my hand were caused by falling from a

guava tree. The burn mark on my knee is from my childhood. My uncle's

son and I were very mischievous as children. It was my brother who

shook the wood from the fireplace, causing the water canister that was

heating on the fireplace to fall on me, burning my knee. This incident

occurred at my home. The fresh injury on my head was from the day of

the incident, when a piece of wood fell on me while I was taking a bath

in the bathroom. The wood had fallen from a hole in the bathroom.

14. At this stage, the witness was shown the CD from the day of

the incident on the Investigating Officer's official laptop, and the second

folder, titled MAH00184.in.MP4, was shown from 2:02:12 to 3:25:00.

He was asked how the injury on the back of his neck was caused. The

witness stated that the scratches on the back of his neck were caused

by scratching. She stated that she had never been beaten.

15. My feet were uninjured. There was nothing wrong with them,

nor was there any pain. My feet were swollen at that time because I

walked without slippers. Madam used to scold me for this, telling me to

wear slippers. It is wrong to say that Madam, Mrs. Deepali Sharma, took

away my slippers. It is also wrong to say that my feet were swollen due

to the cold.

16. I used to sleep in Madam Mrs. Deepali Sharma's room, which

had a divan bed. I myself said that I used to sleep on the floor because

I would fall down when I turned on the divan, so I slept on the floor.

Madam would give me a heater when I felt cold. I was used to sleeping

on the floor even in my own home. I had a mat, mattress, and sheet to

cover myself with, a quilt in winter, and a blanket in summer. It is

wrong to say that I was not given a mattress to sleep on and that I used

to sleep on the floor covered with a sheet. I myself said that I was given

a mattress.

17. I was given all kinds of clothes to wear, like 3-4 shawls, T-

shirts, lowers, etc. I also had jeans and warm clothes, which included

inners, sweaters, socks, etc. I was given many clothes, I don't

remember all of them.

18: The witness was shown the folder named

MAH00184.in.MP4 from 9:45 to 10:03 and was asked if these were the

77

clothes he had? The witness said that there were other clothes as well,

these were the clothes he had washed.

19. On the day of the incident, January 29, 2018, I was

wearing a frock and red jeans. I didn't feel cold in these clothes. It's

correct to say that everyone in this video is wearing warm clothes. I

myself stated that I'm from the mountains and I'm not used to wearing

sweaters, etc., which is why Madam scolded me. It's incorrect to say

that I didn't have warm clothes.

20. While I was staying with Mrs. Deepali Sharma in Haridwar,

I visited my home two or three times. My mother visited twice, and my

father kept visiting. Whenever I spoke to Madam, she would have me

talk to her at my home. It's incorrect to say that Mrs. Deepali Sharma

wouldn't let me go to her home or wouldn't let me talk to my parents.

21. I didn't do any work at Madam's house. I only did my own

work, never did any household chores; the Peon did all the housework.

Madam never paid me any money. Madam never paid my father either.

It is wrong to say that I did all the housework for Madam. It is wrong to

say that I never went to school because I was tired doing housework.

The girl herself said that she did not tell anything, that Rachita Madam

had told her not to tell these things or her parents would go to jail.

22 It is correct to say that I have bruises on my left hand.

These bruises were caused by playing. It is incorrect to say that these

bruises were caused by Madam hitting me with a stick and a spade. It is

incorrect to say that the bruises on my head were caused by Madam

hitting me with a brass statue.

26. It is wrong to say that I am not telling the truth because of

Madam's instructions. She herself stated that I met Madam only today

after that.

29. I don't know Home Guard, Bisht. I didn't know Madam

(Mrs. Deepali Sharma) before she moved to her Haldwani residence. My

father didn't know Madam (Mrs. Deepali Sharma) before. During Mrs.

Deepali Sharma's posting in Haldwani, she never visited our house. She

herself stated that if she didn't know me, why would she come? Mrs.

Deepali Sharma was not bearing the education expenses of anyone

other than me in Haridwar who was not from her family.

30. Nirmala is my sister; she is married. It is incorrect to say

that Home Guard Bisht took me and Nirmala to Mrs. Deepali Sharma's

house for household chores. It is incorrect to say that at Mrs. Deepali

Sharma’s house, I did all the household work, including sweeping,

mopping, and washing utensils, alone. She herself said, "Why would I

do that when there were Peons in the house?"

31. Mrs. Deepali Sharma had flower pots in her house. There

must have been 100-150. The Peon used to clean and water those pots.

It is incorrect to say that she used to wash those pots and water the

plants. Mrs. Deepali Sharma's house in Haridwar had four bathrooms,

three inside and one outside. She cleaned her own bathroom, and the

Peon did the rest. There were some flower beds in the back of Mrs.

Deepali Sharma's residence, but they were untouched. It is wrong to

say that vegetables were grown in those flower beds and that I was

busy working. It is completely wrong to say that when Mrs. Deepali

Sharma got angry with me, she made me work in the flower beds all

night.

32. CCTV cameras were installed in Mrs. Deepali Sharma's

house. I myself stated that they were not installed for me. CCTV

cameras were also installed in the kitchen of Mrs. Deepali Sharma's

residence. It is wrong to say that because of the CCTV cameras installed

in the kitchen, I could not take out my food myself. It is also wrong to

say that for this reason I went to Ms. Rithika Semwal and Mr. Kanwar

Amarinder Singh's houses to ask for food. It is also wrong to say that I

did not get enough food at Mrs. Deepali Sharma's house and that Mrs.

Deepali Sharma beat me up if I tried to take food on my own. She

herself said, "How would I have survived if I hadn't had food? It is

completely false to say that Mrs. Deepali Sharma threatened me that

she would strangle me to death, bury me in a pit behind the field, and

78

that if my parents asked about me, she would tell them that she (Tiruja

Dani alias Tanuja) had run away."

33. It was sunny on 29.01.2018. When I was taken from Mrs.

Deepali Sharma's house, I did not feel cold. Despite the sunshine, it was

not cold.

At this stage, the prosecution filed a request to submit a form

obtained from the Meteorological Department showing the temperature

in Haridwar from 26.01.2018 to 31.01.2018, which was rejected by

passing a detailed order on the order sheet. Furthermore, the

prosecution filed another request to include a copy of the order dated

22.06.2018 regarding the delivery of witness Tiruja Dani alias Tanuja on

the records, which was accepted by passing a detailed order sheet.

34- It is false to say that it was extremely cold on 29.01.2018,

but I did not wear warm clothes because I was not allowed to wear

them.

35- After being taken from Mrs. Deepali Sharma's home, I was

living in an orphanage. I stayed there for approximately five and a half

to seven months. I was not living there of my own free will. I did not

put any conditions before the CWC Haridwar when leaving the ashram

for my home. It is false to say that I told the CWC Haridwar that I would

return home only if my parents did not pressure me. I myself stated

that I went there at night, my parents were not there, and no member

of the CWC Haridwar was present. I went from the Ashram to the police

station with the police constable who was accompanying me, then from

the station to the station, and then from the station to Haldwani by train

at 2:00 am. It is absolutely wrong to say that my father had pressurized

me to stay at Mrs. Deepali Sharma's house and hence I had put this

condition before CWC Haridwar.

36- Mrs. Deepali Sharma used to treat my injuries. Once, when

I fell from a bicycle, I suffered a serious injury to my left hand. Mrs.

Deepali Sharma took me to a doctor. It is incorrect to suggest that this

injury was caused by a knife attack, not a fall from a bicycle. She

herself stated that if she had stabbed me with a knife, my hand would

have been cut. It is incorrect to suggest that Mrs. Deepali Sharma

stabbed me in the hand and neck, causing the injuries. She herself

stated that if she had stabbed me in the neck, I would have died. It is

incorrect to suggest that the injury mark on my back behind my neck

was not caused by itching, but rather by Mrs. Deepali Sharma's beating.

She herself stated that her nails were long at the time, and there were

rashes on my back. You can see for yourself that those are nail marks. I

suffered a single injury from a wooden stick falling on my head. On

January 29, 2018, there were no other fresh injuries on my head or

anywhere else. It is incorrect to say that on January 29, 2018, I had six

fresh injuries on my head. It is incorrect to say that the injury on my

head was caused by a blow, not a falling log. There were no fresh

injuries anywhere else except my head. It is incorrect to say that I had

fresh injuries above my left eye and ear.

37. While staying at Mrs. Deepali Sharma's residence in

Haridwar, I spoke with my father twice a month, and so on, monthly. I

do not currently remember my father's number; it has been

disconnected for some time. It is incorrect to say that I spoke with my

parents only three or four times during this period. I used to

communicate on Mrs. Deepali Sharma's phone, landline, or whatever

Mrs. Deepali Sharma arranged for me to communicate with. I visited my

home two or three times during this period. I myself stated that my

parents frequently visited. It is wrong to say that I only went home once

during this period. Mrs. Deepali Sharma gave me 100-150 rupees for

food on my way home, telling me to take some for my parents. My

father used to pick me up. I used to go home with him.

40. On January 29, 2018, I did not want to leave Mrs. Deepali

Sharma's house. The police forcibly took me away. I even refused to tell

them where they were taking me. They still took me away, telling me

that my parents were coming to pick me up tomorrow.

79

41. When the police and the District Judge came to pick me up,

I did not complain about Mrs. Deepali Sharma. I showed them all my

warm clothes and mattresses. I played with Mrs. Deepali Sharma's

children, Annaya Sharma and Samrat, and took photos while playing

with them. Once, I even made a video of Mrs. Deepali Sharma feeding

her son, Samrat. I ate the same food that Mrs. Deepali Sharma ate with

her family. Mrs. Deepali Sharma gave me all the reading and writing

books and other supplies. Mrs. Deepali Sharma never restricted my

movement. I could go wherever I wanted. Whenever Mrs. Deepali

Sharma went to a restaurant with her family for dinner, she would take

me along and feed me. I had no complaints against Mrs. Deepali

Sharma. Whenever Mrs. Deepali Sharma went to Dehradun or anywhere

else, she would take me along.

42. The police took me from Mrs. Deepali Sharma's house to

the SSP office and made me talk to my parents there and told me that

my parents would be coming, but after that, my parents never came,

nor did they let me talk to them.

43. When they took me to the SSP office, Rachita Madam,

Sardar Uncle, District Judge Sir, several police officers, SSP Sir, and CO

Uncle were present. They then took me to the hospital. All these people

had come to the hospital. I did not show or tell about any of my injuries

in the hospital, Rachita madam showed them and even then I had said

that these injuries were caused by playing but Rachita madam had said

that these injuries were caused by Mrs. Deepali Sharma hitting me.

Apart from Rachita madam, Sardar uncle was also present in the

hospital, he was also showing injuries and asking the doctor to write

down these injuries also. I had seen the doctor. I do not know his age

but he was old. Very old, he was wearing glasses and the light was also

dim.

44. After the hospital, I went straight to the ashram. Rachita

madam had taken me to the Ashram and there were policemen and

some people with me, I do not remember who they were.

45. Rachita Madam visited me at the ashram every month, and

Sardar Uncle also visited once. I asked Rachita Madam and Sardar Uncle

to let me talk to my parents, but they refused. Two police constables

stayed with me at the Ashram, and they kept a constant watch on me.

When Sardar Ji came to visit me, he told me that I couldn't go home

until Mrs. Deepali Sharma was sent to jail. He himself said that ASP

Madam Rachita had told me not to go outside the gate, as she was very

cunning and would pick me up from anywhere. These people wouldn't

even let me go outside the gate.

46. I also had an X-ray done to verify my age. The X-ray was

done by the CO Sir. I also gave a statement before the Magistrate. The

CO Sir gave me a paper and said, "Kid, you have to memorize and tell

me this." If you don't tell me, your parents could go to jail, and you'll

never be able to leave the Ashram. It was out of this fear that I told the

Magistrate what was written on that paper. I myself stated that Sardar

Uncle was outside the curtains when my statement was being recorded,

and he kept coming into the room.

47. Before my statement was recorded before the Magistrate, I

was taken to Sardar Uncle's chamber. Even there, I was told that I had

to say only what was written on the paper. When these things were said

in Sardar's chamber, Rachita Madam, CO Sir, Sardar Sir, Ranjana

Sharma Madam from Bal Vikas, and the two female constables who

lived with me were also present. Rachita Madam, Sardar Sir, and CO Sir

were present when my statement was being recorded before the

Magistrate. I myself stated that they were outside the room at the time.

Of these, Sardar Uncle kept coming into the room, while the other two,

Rachita Madam and the Chief Executive Officer, were outside. When I

went to Sardar Ji's chamber, the District Judge hadn't arrived.

48. I didn't want to stay in the Ashram; I wanted to go home,

and I repeatedly stated this from the beginning.

49. Two months were left for my exam when I was taken from

Mrs. Deepali Sharma's house, kept in the ashram, and wasn't even

80

allowed to take the exam. After leaving the Ashram, I couldn't study

because my admission certificate hadn't arrived, and the Chief Executive

Officer had told me not to give the certificate. I herself stated that the

denial of the certificate was told to me by the Headmistress of Adarsh

Shishu Niketan, Dhirwali Jwalapur, Haridwar. The Chief Executive I

mentioned above was Manoj Katyal. A month or two after coming out of

the Ashram, I came to Adarsh Shishu Niketan, Haridwar with my uncle

where the headmistress told me the above thing.

50. My parents came to pick me up at the ashram. While

leaving, they were involved in an accident. My mother broke her arm

and required 16 stitches on her head. My father suffered internal

injuries and a broken knee. While I was at the ashram, I knew my

parents had come to pick me up, but the ashram staff wouldn't let me

go. My parents visited me several times, but they weren't allowed to see

me and were turned away at the gate. My father told me this when I

returned home.

51. The headmistress of Adarsh Shishu Niketan, Haridwar, told

me to write to the High Court if I needed a TC. My father then wrote to

the High Court and the District Judge, Haridwar, and I was granted my

TC, which is why I was able to attend school this year.

53. At this stage, the witness was shown a copy of the case

CD/DVD of FIR No. 58/2018, played on the investigating officer's official

laptop, and was asked, "In this, you are seen wearing a cloth on your

head. Why did you wear a cloth on your head?" The witness replied, "I

had just washed my head at that time, and that's why I had the cloth

on."

55. The witness was shown footage of the above video,

MAH00184.MP4, at 2:18 PM, in which Rachita is pointing to the

witness's head. The witness was asked why she was showing her hair

with it open. The witness replied that a piece of wood had fallen on her

head. When she went to take a bath, her head was itching and she

scratched it. They thought that Mrs. Deepali Sharma had hit her. When

Rachita Madam was taking her away, she was telling her that Mrs.

Deepali Sharma had hit her.

57. When I was being examined at the hospital, Rachita

Madam was present; there was no female doctor. When my clothes

were lifted, only Rachita Madam was present. She marked the same

injury that I had described earlier.

58. The witness was shown his medical examination report

dated 05:55 PM, 29.01.2018, which is paper number 53 and 52 in the

file sent by the Hon'ble High Court, injury number 19, which states "Old

burn mark 12 cm X 9 cm left side back of chest." He was asked if there

was a 12 cm X 9 cm burn mark on his back. The witness replied that

there was none. He himself said that he had asked his mother about

this injury and she had examined it and said that there were none. It is

correct to say that even though there were no injuries on his body, the

doctor may have shown 20 injuries on Rachita Madam's insistence.

59. When Sardar Uncle came to meet me at the ashram, his

wife and child were also with him. His car had come in through the gate.

He himself said that I was in the room when he came in. When he was

leaving, I was outside in the courtyard with the children and two female

constables who always accompanied me. I saw his car then.

60. I was not allowed to meet my parents. Sardar Uncle, CO

Sir, and Rachita Madam would write down instructions on paper

regarding my statement to be recorded before the magistrate. I

protested against this at the time. I myself said that these people did

not even inform me about my parents' arrival, even though they had

tried to meet me several times.

61. It is true that I was used as a pawn in the conspiracy

against Mrs. Deepali Sharma, and my education was ruined/affected. I

even asked CO Sir to allow me to take the exam. If they had wanted,

they could have allowed me to take the exam.

62. It is correct to say that Mrs. Deepali Sharma told me that

she would keep me in her home, educate me, and make me successful.

81

She would make me capable of getting a job and standing on my own

feet. It is correct to say that everything in Mrs. Deepali Sharma's house,

whether jewelry, money, or other belongings, was always kept open in

front of me without locks. It is also correct to say that Mrs. Deepali

Sharma trusted me as much as she trusted her daughter.

100. From the above, it is apparent that a six paragraph

examination-in-chief by the Presenting Officer has resulted in

a 55 question bombardment by way of cross-examination.

Despite the young child being subjected to such detailed

searching and exhaustive examination, not a single admission

has been elicited which would cast a cloud or create a doubt

in the mind of any prudent person regarding the veracity and

sanctity of her deposition. The presence of armed policemen

stands confirmed, the visits by P.W.1 and P.W.5 to the place

where she was forcibly kept stands proved, as neither P.W.1

nor P.W.5 produced any material to controvert the claims,

which could have been easily done by producing the CCTV

footages installed in the Ashram, yet the Inquiry Officer has

simply brushed aside the evidence of P.W.2 in toto with her

single line conclusion that she has been bought over. It is

pertinent to note that the child has been examined as a

witness by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the disciplinary

authority/prosecution and has been treated as a hostile

witness by the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer has

been permitted to cross-examine the witness. The

respondents have not placed any material whatsoever to

controvert even any one of the assertions made by the girl in

the course of her cross-examination. In fact, on two dates of

82

cross-examination, i.e. 18.07.2018 and 25.07.2018, the

Question Nos.26 and 39 by the Presenting Officer suggesting

that she is deposing false statements under the influence of

the petitioner have been categorically denied. In fact, in Para

39, she has volunteered to state that she had never met the

petitioner, after she had been forcibly removed on

29.01.2018, i.e. a gap of almost a year and a half. Even this

categorical assertion has not been controverted, but the I.O.

would go to conclude that this witness has been won over.

The issue of the witness being won over is a question of fact

and the onus was on the Presenting Officer and the

Department to demonstrate as to how the witness has been

won over. There is not even a suggestion suggesting any

manner of influence or even an act which could be construed

as sufficient enough for the petitioner to hold sway over the

witness. Mere suggestions without there being an appropriate

material to demonstrate the ‘fact’ would not enable the I.O.

to draw a conclusion that a fact has been proved. The I.O.

has completely eschewed P.W.2 the girl, D.W.2- the father of

the girl and D.W.3-the petitioner from consideration

rendering the conclusions drawn as arbitrary and whimsical.

101. The girl has categorically denied having visited

P.W.1’s house. The girl evidence would show that her

answers given in the SSP’s office to P.W.5 were not recorded.

It would go to show that when the statement attributed to

83

her and said to have been recorded by Sri Varun, ADJ by way

of handwriting were in the presence of P.W.5 and the

statement was not read over to her and she was directed to

affix her signature. That she was not assaulted by the

petitioner and she had undergone education in Class 8 in

Govt. Primary School, Roshanabad, where she secure Ist

place and her admission to another school in Class 9

th

; that

the scratches and the injury on the left forehead were on

account of falling from the bicycle while attempting to learn

to ride a bicycle. The other scratches on hand were on

account of falling from the guava tree. The presence of guava

tree is admitted by P.W.1. The other injury on the knee is

stated to be from her childhood and the manner in which it

happened is also explained. The injury on the back has also

been explained as having occurred on account of scratching

and it is again reiterated by the child that she was never

beaten. It has been categorically asserted by the child that as

she was hailing from the mountains, she was not affected by

the cold of Haridwar, which is in the plains; that she has

affirmed that a mattress, quilt and a blanket in summer and

all kinds of clothes were given to her.

102. In fact, in Para 21 she has asserted that she never

did any household work and all the household work has been

done by the peons and has also asserted of herself going to

the school. She also recalls the threat given by P.W.5, a

84

Senior Police Officer, who threatened that her parents would

go to the jail if she reveals the truth. That her father did not

face any case of any nature which would require him to go

jail and she has also volunteered in Question 26 that she was

meeting the petitioner today only, i.e. on 18.07.2019, i.e.

after she was taken away on 29.01.2018. This is critical as no

material to controvert the same has been placed by the

respondent to even suggest that there was an occasion for

the petitioner to exert any influence over the child. Despite

such categorical assertion remaining on record, the

conclusion of the I.O. that witness has been won over to state

the least is absolutely perverse and the conclusion is also in

the teeth of the principles of natural justice. In fact, her

assertion that the peons were doing all the household work

has been reiterated by her again in her answer to Question

Nos.30 and 31. In fact, the child in her answer to Question

No.32, as recorded in Para 32, makes a mockery of the

allegation that she was not given food and she was starved

with. “……How would I survive if I hadn’t had food……..” In

Para 33, she has asserted that weather conditions were

sunny on 29.01.2018 and she did not feel cold on

29.01.2018. Even this assertion has not been controverted by

any of the witnesses. The suggestion to the contrary is denied

in Para 34. The answers recorded in Para 35 and 36 would

clearly demonstrate unhappiness of child while at the Ashram

85

and in Para 36, the witness literally mocks the prosecution

and makes a mockery of the allegation by the prosecution

that the injury was caused by “knife attack” and not from the

fall of the bicycle. She answers it “……If she had stabbed me

with a knife, my hand would have been cut…..” “….If she

stabbed in the neck, I would have died……”. In Para 37, 38

and 39, she has denied that she was deposing false at the

behest of her father. In Para 40, she details that she was

forcibly taken away. In Para 41, she details as to how she

was treated by the petitioner and that she was treated as a

family member. In Para 43, she states that she did not state

about the injuries to the doctor, implying that no questions

was posed by the doctor and that the doctor was acting under

the instruction of P.W.5. That doctor was a very old person

wearing glasses and he was examining her in the dim light. In

Para 45, she indicts P.W.1 and P.W.5 by stating that P.W.5

used to visit her every month and that two police constables

were deputed in the Ashram to keep a constant watch on her.

That P.W.1 stated that he she would not be able to go home

till the petitioner was sent to the jail.

103. Though, such serious allegations are levelled by the

child, yet all this has been conveniently ignored. In fact, the

child being a minor was required to be dealt with by the

District Child Protection Unit in terms of Section 37 and 107

of the JJ Act. In Para 46, she recalls the threat given to her

86

by the police officer stating her parent would go to jail and

she will never be able to leave the Ashram, if she does not

make the statement as jotted down by the C.O. That the

statements made by her to the Magistrate were out of fear

generated by the threat. She further state that P.W.1 was

standing beside the curtains and coming to the courtroom.

The further deposition in Para 47 is even more demeaning. In

Para 48, she has categorically expressed unhappiness with

the fact that she was made to remain in the Ashram.

104. It is pertinent to appreciate the conclusion of the

I.O. that she was staying happily in the Ashram. Such a

conclusion, despite such a statement made by the witness

that too, in the face of the I.O., leaves us wondering. In fact,

the allegations in Para 49 demonstrate a complete violation of

the scope and ambit of the JJ Act. The demeaning allegation

in Para 50 and 51, all are indicative of the fact that there is

more to it than meets the eye. In Para 58, she admits the

suggestion that despite there not being many injuries, the

doctor has recorded 20 injuries and the said injuries have

been recorded on the insistence of P.W.5, the ASP. In Para

59, she has deposed that P.W.1 visited the Ashram in his

official car along with his wife and child. Even this assertion

has not been controverted by producing the CCTV footage of

the cameras installed in the Ashram after the girl was

admitted there. Reading of Para 60 would show that the

87

statements attributed to her were actually those written down

by P.W.1 and P.W.5. Even this categorical assertion remains

on record but for reasons best known have been completely

ignored by the I.O.

105. From the above, one can safely conclude that

appreciation of P.W.2’s evidence is vitiated by perversity and

the conclusion that this witness is won over is not supported

by even a shred of evidence. In fact, there is not even a

suggestion put to the minor girl that she has been engaged

as a maid servant from 2015. If that be so, we are left

wondering as to what material evidence or material fact was

placed before the I.O. to demonstrate or even allege that the

child has been engaged as a maid servant since 2015.

Probably the statement of the child that she has been staying

with the petitioner for the past 2½ years has been twisted

around by the I.O. and, this alone would suffice to render the

finding perverse and arbitrary.

106. We now proceed to appreciate the evidence

tendered by P.W.4, who was working as Probation Officer and

who was called by the SSP Haridwar. In Para 2, he has

deposed as under:-

2. Afterward, at around 2:45-3:00, the entire team arrived at

Mrs. Deepali Sharma's residence with the SSP. We were accompanied

by the District Judge of Haridwar, Mr. Amninder Singh, Magistrate,

Rachita Juyal, ASP, and the SSP. The team was fully staffed, including

constables and other personnel.

88

107. In Para 3, he says a body bore signs of old and new

injuries. In the same breath, he deposes that the girl was

wearing a frock and legging. If that was so, the statement

that body bore injuries appears to be unbelievable. If the

body was covered by frock and leggings, then the question is

how did he observe the injuries? Be that as it may, in Para 5,

he deposes that the child informed him that she was enrolled

in a school and she attended school. In Para 6, she identifies

the video recordings. In Para 7, he states that the victim was

made to speak to the father. That the victim was also

questioned and that the victim, in her statement, denied that

she was being beaten and deprived of food. He further claims

that the girl herself stated that it is the police job to inquire

about the injuries. That the girl informed him that her father

was involved in some legal case and that she was sent to the

petitioner’s place for education due to their financial

difficulties. In Para 8, he says that medical examination was

conducted by doctors and thereafter, the victim was sent to

the Ashram.

108. Even assuming for argument sake that the

statement is true, then it was a case that would require to be

tried by the Designated Court under Section 86 of Chapter IX

of the Act of 2015. But we find that no such proceedings have

been initiated. But on the other hand, it is submitted that a

89

case of trafficking was registered and subsequently

withdrawn by the State.

109. The admission elicited in the course of cross-

examination to Question No.11, which is as under:-

“11. Question: At what time and place were you informed that

the girl had to be rescued?

Answer: I was informed by the SSP only after about 2:30 p.m.

that the girl had to be rescued. Mr. Agnihotri did not order me to carry

out the rescue.”

110. Thus, the admitted fact is that all the witnesses

have deposed that they reached the house of the petitioner at

about 03:00 PM and it has also come out in the evidence of

all the witnesses that none of them had seen the child, nor

did any of them claim to be eye-witnesses to the beatings

inflicted on the child, yet even before they started the

journey to conduct a preliminary inquiry, as directed by the

High Court, it was determined to conduct a ‘rescue’, implying

thereby it was a pre-determined action.

111. The next answer is even more alarming and the

answer to Question No. 12 reads as under:-

12. We did not have a search warrant for Mrs. Deepali

Sharma's house. I saw armed police officers surrounding Mrs.

Deepali Sharma's house; I did not give any such orders.

112. It is reiteration of his deposition in Paragraph No.2.

This answer begs a question by itself. Was surrounding of the

house by armed personnel, necessary? More so, when the

target was only a lady judicial officer? The apparent reason

appears to be to shame the petitioner rather than rendering

90

any justice. The fact remains that the video recordings were

widely shared in the print and electronic media across the

country and in one stroke the petitioner stood publicly

condemned.

113. We are constrained to infer as above in view of the

answers elicited to the next two questions. More particularly,

Question No.14 and the answer reads as under:-

“Answer: The District Judge, who was with us, asked the

girl to call Madam outside. He himself stated that there wasn't

enough time then and the questioning could have been carried

out at a leisurely pace. The District Judge was supposed to

conduct the questioning; we were just standing there. I can't

explain why the girl was sent inside and asked to call Mrs. Deepali

Sharma.” (emphasis supplied)

114. The answer would suggest that the District Judge

had already conceived a predetermined course of action. The

answers to Question Nos.15 and 16 throw even more light

and the same read as under:-

15. It's true that my designation is not just Probation

Officer, it's Legal cum Probation Officer. I have been appointed as

Legal cum Probation Officer under the provisions of the J.J. Act; I

am not aware of the specific provision by which I have been

appointed.

Question: Is it true that the Probation Officer under the

District Child Protection Unit is solely responsible for protecting

the rights of minors?

Answer: It is correct.

16. Question: In this case too, as per the rules, only the

District Child Protection Unit had this authority, and in this

regard, the District Probation Officer acted against the provisions

of the J.J. Act without seeking permission from the State

Government. Is this correct?

Answer: I am not aware in this regard.

115. Our inference that the District Judge was

predetermined is further buttressed by the answer recorded

in Para 18.

91

18. I have not conducted any investigation in this matter.

The District Judge of Haridwar also never called me to record my

statement after the incident.

116. The answers elicited in Para 19, 20, 21 and 22 is

even more alarming and read as under:-

19. It is correct to say that I received calls from Mr.

Amninder Singh. He was in constant contact with us regarding the

incident and handled everything: whether to release the girl,

dressing her, medical examination, and he kept us informed

about all these matters. Mr. Amninder also gave us guidance on

whether to hand over the girl to her parents. After this, he

remained in contact with Vinod Kumar Sharma of the Child

Welfare Committee, as this was his work, not mine. Mr. Amninder

Singh also summoned me to Court once or twice after the

incident. I was called during lunch, and Vinod Kumar Sharma, the

Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, accompanied me.

Vinod Kumar Sharma, the Chairman of the Child Welfare

Committee, frequently met with Amninder Singh; I do not know

the total number of times they met.

20. Whenever Mr. Amninder Singh met with me, he would

say that the victim was being severely beaten and should be

allowed to stay at Shri Ram Ashram. The only pressure was to

keep the girl at Shri Ram Ashram for as long as possible.

21. The Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, the

District Judge, Amninder Singh, and Rachita Juyal had decided at

the time of the medical examination that the girl would be sent to

Shri Ram Ashram. I do not remember on which specific dates we

were called by Amninder Singh or at what interval of days he

called us, he himself said that I met him twice.

22. I am aware that the Child Welfare Committee refused

to hand over the girl to her parents. I am not aware that before

the Child Welfare Committee refused to hand over the girl to her

parents, Mr. Amninder Singh called Vinod Kumar Sharma and

instructed him not to hand over the girl to her parents. Mr.

Amninder Singh had been in regular phone conversations with

Vinod Sharma.

117. The answers elicited are so explicit and require no

imagination and are damning about P.W.1 and P.W.5 and it

suggests a predetermined and concerted action and is

suggestive of a role played by P.W.1 and P.W.5 beyond the

call of duty and which cannot by any stretch of imagination

classified as bonafide.

118. In Para 23, he admits the statement of the child in

the video recording “it was hot, that’s why I wore these

92

clothes. I like wearing such clothes.” “Madam treats me very

well”. “I have no problems here.” “I fell and got injured at my

house”. “I quite like madam. I received a call from her, so I

returned here.” These are statements made at the earliest

point of time, i.e. when the raiding party arrived at the door

step of the petitioner and the petitioner had no role to play.

These are the statements that have been reiterated during

her cross-examination by the Presenting Officer. In reply to

Question No.24, as recorded in Para 24, he admits that P.W.1

is heard saying that verification has been made and rescue

has to be carried out. In Para 25, he admits that the girl was

heard saying that two days before the incident, petitioner had

asked the girl to go to her house and that she had refused.

He also admits that the recording would show the petitioner

asking the girl if she wanted to go to her house with the

rescuing team and the girl refused to go with them. He also

admits that the recording shows that the girl cried and said “I

don’t want to go.”

119. The admission extracted and recorded in Para 26 is

even more critical and is demonstrative of the perverse

approach adopted. It reads as under:-

26. It is true that all the above-mentioned statements

made by the girl were not mentioned in the memo. It is correct to

say that these matters should have been mentioned in the memo.

The contents of the memo should have been from the spot, but

all these facts were not mentioned in the memo. This is true. The

SSP himself said that the memo was being prepared in his office

in front of him.

93

120. The answer elicited and recorded in Para 27 is even

more shocking and the last sentence is a telling one. Para 27

reads as under:-

27. I did not pass the order to send the girl to Shri Ram

Ashram. No CWC member was present at the scene. The CWC

alone has the authority to send a minor to a children's home. It is

correct to say that the girl had already been rescued by the time

the CWC members arrived. Only the CWC can determine whether

they had a search warrant. It cannot be said that the police were

the sole authority. Who can be named when everyone was

involved?

121. In Para 30, he admits that CWC had neither

ordered the DM or the SSP to investigate the matter on

07.02.2018 and he further alleges that P.W.1 used to contact

the CWC. In Para 33, he admits that the CWC did not seek

any report from him with regard to the release of the girl. He

has further volunteered to state that if a report had been

called from him, he was unaware of the same. Thereafter, he

has been confronted with the proceedings of CWC wherein it

is recorded that a report has been obtained from him and

that he has expressed an apprehension that if the girl is

released to her parents, she would fall into wrong hands and

when questioned as to whether he had given such a report,

the witness categorically stated that no such report was given

by him and has further stated that he does not know on what

grounds the CWC has recorded as above.

122. The answer elicited in Paragraphs 38 and 39 is

even more enlightening, wherein he states that he was

informed about D.W.2’s involvement in a case by CWC

94

Chairman Vinod Sharma and he is personally not aware of

any such case.

123. In Para 42, he affirms the allegation of P.W.2 the

girl about the presence of P.W.5 ASP, at the time of recording

of girl’s statement by ADJ Varun Kumar. He further affirms

that P.W.5 was inside when the statement was being

recorded. The admission in Para 47 is with regard to the

position in law which mandates that a child who is not an

accused shall be dealt with by the policemen in plain clothes

and he further reiterates the presence of police in uniform

and armed. In Para 48, he admits that no opportunity was

given to him to converse with the girl and ascertain any facts.

Para 51 affirms the categorical allegations levelled by P.W.2

the girl against P.W.1 and P.W.5 and it further buttresses our

inference that P.W.1 appears to be acting beyond the call of

duty and in a manner that cannot be described as bonafide.

In Para 53, he admits that he did not inform the parents of

the child after she was sent to the Ashram.

124. As noted above, damning admissions about the role

of P.W.1 and P.W.5 have been elicited but the witness has

not been treated hostile nor has even a suggestion by the

Presenting Officer been put to the witness. Despite this fact

the I.O. has concluded that the witness has been won over

and yet again without there being an iota of evidence to

95

demonstrate the same. This approach of the I.O. is reflective

of a biased mind.

125. The evidence of P.W.3- the District Judge is riddled

by inherent contradictions and incriminating statements

pointing a finger towards P.W.1. In Para 1 he says he was

informed by P.W.1 about the complaint received by the High

Court and that he was also informed that he was instructed to

take action by P.W.1. Though, the fax was received at 02:33

PM, he has deliberately advanced the time of receipt between

02:00- 02:15 PM. It is common knowledge that time is

recorded by the fax machine. Probably, to support the

following statement that he contacted the SSP only after

receipt of the communication. It has come out in the evidence

of P.W.4 to Question No.9 that he was informed by the

District Probation Officer around 1:30 to 2:00 PM to proceed

to the SSP’s office and in reply to Question No.11 he has

answered he received the call from the SSP after about 2:30

PM. Thus, the fax report produced as Annexure-7 reflects the

time as 29

th

January, 02:33 PM. If the fax was received at

02:33 PM only, then, how did the District Probation Officer

instruct P.W.4 to present himself in the SSP’s office at 1:30

PM. This goes to strengthen the contention on behalf of the

petitioner that the course of action was predetermined.

96

126. We have heard every witness impressing about the

seriousness of the complaint and that they galvanized into

action because of the seriousness of the complaint. We are

constrained to take this statement with a pinch of salt. There

is no explanation as to why a complaint that is alleged to be

of “serious proportions” not merit attention for almost 19

days and all of sudden, in the midst of the winter vacations,

an army is galvanized, residence of a lady judicial officer is

raided and which raid is videographed and which videography

has been shared with the media. The officers concerned in

their attempt to demonstrate their holier than thou attitude

failed to recognize the harm that it had caused to the

standing of the Institution in public. Though, we have serious

reservations about the manner and method adopted by the

District Judge, we have refrained from initiating any action at

this distant point of time and certainly summoning a lady

officer to the doorstep even for a purported inquiry, in our

considered opinion, was belittling the post she held. By the

said exercise, they have not merely belittled the person

involved but also the post that she was holding and cause

incalculable damage to the standing of the Institutions

resulting in the petitioner being condemned and pronounced

guilty even before completion of the preliminary inquiry.

127. As noted supra, the preliminary inquiry could have

been completed by merely examining the peons who were

97

assigned to the house of the petitioner. But a show of

strength was organized and to achieve what objective, is not

forthcoming. None of the witnesses state that the petitioner

was armed with deadly weapons or guns. None of the

witnesses have stated that petitioner is inclined towards

violence. None of the witnesses have stated that the

petitioner has a history of acting or reacting violently. None of

the witnesses have stated that they apprehended any

physical harm to themselves if they visited the house of the

petitioner. If this is the evidence or absence of such evidence,

then the question that stares at us is “Was such a

mobilization of armed policemen including the presence of

senior officer, like Senior Superintendent of Police, Additional

Superintendent of Police, Circle Officer etc. required?” In the

absence of any warrant for coercive action, the marshalling of

such a large squad and surrounding the house with armed

policemen, in our opinion, was an act of overreach and an act

in excess of the mandate conferred on the District Judge, i.e.

P.W.3.

128. In fact, every witness has described the dress worn

by the minor girl differently. The deposition, as recorded in

Para 5, is self-contradictory. In Para 3, he states that the girl

was wearing a half sleeve jacket and pyjama. In Para 5, he

asked P.W.5 to check for visible injuries. He proceeds further

to elaborate and state that bruises were visible on the girl’s

98

head, body and arms and there was visible numbness on her

feet.

129. If torso was covered by a jacket and the lower

limbs covered by a pyjama, then it begs a question as to how

this witness, P.W.3 was able to observe the ‘bruises on the

body’? Even without addressing a query to the girl regarding

her age, he deposes in Para 6 that the complaint was verified.

The basis of the complaint is that a minor girl has been

engaged as a maid servant. He does not even whisper as to

whether he made any queries about being employed as a

maid or domestic help, nor does he state that he enquired

about the age of the minor girl. This deposition only

buttresses our inference that P.W.3- District Judge had

adopted a predetermined course of action. In fact, as

observed by us supra, none of the witnesses had even

whispered that they have made an attempt to ascertain the

age of the girl, which as per the ossification test report has

attained the age of 17 years as on the date of incident.

130. In Para 7, he deposes that the girl furnished the

mobile number of her father and her uncle. In Para 8, he

stated that P.W.5 began questioning the minor girl but there

is no record of any such questioning except the oral

assertion, which is controverted by other witnesses.

99

131. When the High Court had assigned a task of

carrying out the preliminary inquiry, he has abdicated the

duty cast upon him by deposing that he did not question the

girl. It is not that he had assigned or deputed the ASP to do it

or that he was not at the scene. He has, in his own words, led

the pack and yet failed to perform the duty assigned by the

High Court.

132. To a question in the cross-examination, an answer

of convenience is made. In fact, P.W.3 and P.W.5 have

indulged in selective amnesia. To inconvenient questions,

they have come up with convenient answer “I do not recall

today”, as if the incident was eons ago. He is the authority

who sends the peons and in Para 14, he would submit that he

does not remember or he cannot recall, when a mere

reference to the records would have sufficed. In Para 16, he

would say that does not know whether P.W.1 performed any

judicial work or not. The answer by P.W.1 is that he was

sitting in the P.W.3’s chamber all day long. It is further

elucidated that P.W.1 came to his rest room at 01:30 PM.

Either this witness is lying or P.W.1 is lying because it is the

claim of P.W.1, in his cross-examination in Para 53, that he

was sitting in the chamber of P.W.3 all day long. He further

answer in Para 17 that he does not know whether the letter

from the High Court was forwarded to him by fax or mail.

Explaining further, he would state that it was P.W.1 who

100

brought them to him. He would further admit he can’t explain

why CAO didn’t bring the fax or mail to him directly but took

it to P.W.1 despite it being addressed to P.W.3. The further

denial that he does not know with whom P.W.1 was

conversing on telephone at the High Court, directly in

contradiction to the deposition in Para 1 of his examination,

wherein he has stated that P.W.1 explained to him that RG/

RG (I/c) had informed P.W.1 and he was conveying to P.W.3.

If he had any doubts, a prudent judicial officer would have

reconfirmed with the RG/ RG (I/c) or the High Court in

general. He admits he did not call the High Court. He admits

that he was not informed either by the RG or the RG (I/c)

(Registrar Infrastructure) regarding the complaint and yet he

would mobilize an army of policemen and other officers to

“raid” the house of a lady judicial officer who was living in the

quarters and whose husband was away on work. He is unable

to clarify why the fax or mail was placed before the P.W.1

subordinate and was not placed before him by the CAO, as is

the practice and protocol. In fact, his answer to Question

No.18 or as recorded in Para 18, reads as under:-

Question: I am saying that the normal procedure for

receiving faxes has been changed in this case. Is this correct?

Answer: Perhaps, given the seriousness of the matter, Mr.

Kanwar Amninder Singh personally received the fax received from

the Hon'ble High Court. I had no such instructions.

133. If this answer is appreciated in plain terms, it would

give the impression that P.W.1 held the power to step in if

the matter was serious enough and he could handle the

101

communications addressed to P.W.3, who, admittedly, is the

Head of the Institution. It would further buttress the

vehement contention of the petitioner that the role played by

P.W.1 was more than necessitated. The last sentence speaks

eloquently about the state of affairs. Probably, we would not

be wrong if we are to opine that P.W.3 the Presiding District

Judge was in awe of an officer junior to him.

134. The conclusion drawn by this Court that P.W.3 was

adopting a predetermined course of action and that course of

action was being influenced by P.W.1 stands supported by the

answers elicited and recorded in Para 20, 21 and 22.

135. The answers elicited in the course of cross-

examination of P.W.3, the District Judge in paragraphs 23,

26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48,

50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,

68, 73, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93,

95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108,

109, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 128,

129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141,

145, 146, 147, 148, 154, 155, 156 and 157 are

detrimental and completely damaging to the case built up

against the petitioner. All these grave inconsistencies,

contradictions and unbelievable versions have been ignored

and the Inquiry Officer has attached weight to such evidence

102

while discarding truthful evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and

D.W.2.

136. We now bestow our attention upon the evidence,

deposition tendered by P.W.5. In fact, her deposition in Para

4 cuts at the very root of the Inquiry Officer’s presumption

that time gap of 5-7 minutes taken for the petitioner to come

out of the house was time enough for the petitioner to

intimidate the minor girl. The witness has deposed that the

petitioner emerged from the house as the raiding team was

asking the girl to go and summon the petitioner. Contrary to

her deposition in Para 8, the minor girl has virtually alleged

undue influence by P.W.5 and the deposition as recorded in

para 9 is contradicted by P.W.3, who has stated that P.W.5

accompanied the minor girl to the Ashram. It is also pertinent

to note that D.W.3 has alleged close association between

P.W.1 and P.W.5 and this is a witness who has given a

convenient stock answer to every inconvenient question. In

Para 14, she denies knowledge of letter dated 19.02.2018

written by the District Court to lodge an FIR. In Para 15, she

admits that the orders were given by the District Judge

Haridwar and claims that she does not have copies of those

orders. In Para 16, she would depose that she has not

brought the documents related to the case. It is unheard of

that an official witness would attend an inquiry without the

records. She has been confronted with the deposition of

103

P.W.3 the District Judge Hardiwar, who has stated about

having not given any oral or written direction to lodge an FIR,

to which she states that all types of communication were

made in writing by the District Judge to the SSP Haridwar. In

reply to Question 17, she states that the raid was conducted

by her in compliance with the order directions received from

the SSP. The paragraphs in which the contradictory answers

and convenient stock answers “I cannot recall and I do not

have knowledge of this” given by P.W.5 are detailed

hereunder:-

“19. Q. – Under which act was the aforesaid procedure

implemented?

A. – I only complied with the orders of the Hon’ble High

Court; the procedure briefed by the S.S.P., Haridwar, was

followed.

20. Q. – Does this answer mean that while carrying out

such a substantial action, you are not aware under which

Act it was done, nor whether the procedure adopted was

even legal or not? Is this correct?

A. – Every action was undertaken by me in compliance

with orders.

21. Q. – Is it correct to say that the above action was

undertaken by contravening the provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure?

A. – Every action undertaken by me was in accordance

with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.

22. Q. – Paper No. 28, letter dated 29.01.2018, which is

part of the record sent by the Hon’ble High Court, kindly

state, referring to your answer to question no. 21, where

in the said order the Hon’ble High Court had directed you,

and mention those lines.

A. – The directions referred to in the above question were

issued to the S.S.P. by the learned District Judge,

Haridwar, in compliance with the said letter. The letter

was not addressed to me.

104

24. Q. – It is my contention that neither the Hon’ble High

Court had authorized the then District Judge nor you to

constitute a police team to raid the residence of Smt.

Deepali Sharma. Is my contention correct?

A. – Your contention is correct that I did not have any

direct order from the Hon’ble High Court in my name to

come to your house or to conduct a raid. I am not aware of

what orders the Hon’ble High Court had issued for the

learned District Judge.

25. I was directed by the Inquiry Officer through summons

to bring a copy of the letter by which the then S.S.P.,

Haridwar, had ordered lodging of an FIR against Smt.

Deepali Sharma. Upon searching, I could not find the copy

of that letter; hence, I have not brought the copy with me

today. It is incorrect to state that no such order was given

by the S.S.P., Haridwar, and therefore I have not brought

the said letter today. It is incorrect to state that I

knowingly did not comply with the Inquiry Officer’s above-

mentioned order. (despite being to summon the document she

states that she has not brought it, as she could not find the copy.

This is reflective of the attitude of the witness and despite there

being the two weeks’ gap between the previous date of

examination and current date of examination, ie. 07.11.2019 and

21.11.2019).

29. Q. – You said in answer to question no. 26 that “I was

not ordered to obtain any document from the Investigation

Officer.” Please clarify this statement?

Ans. – The copy of the order of the S.S.P. that I had, I

could not find upon searching. Besides that, I did not

contact the Investigation Officer again to obtain the order.

30. I had written the report of this incident. In that report, I

mentioned the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. I have not

produced the copy of that order of the Hon’ble High Court before

the Inquiry Officer. I also did not give the copy of that order to

the Investigation Officer. I myself stated that I had given the

Investigation Officer the copy of the orders which I received at

that time from the S.S.P., Haridwar. The aforesaid order of the

Hon’ble High Court did not come into my possession.

31. Q. – Did you mention the order of the Hon’ble High Court

dated 19.02.2018 in the FIR without seeing the order?

A. – The order given to me by the S.S.P., Haridwar, referred to

the order received by him.

105

32. Q. – You have not mentioned the instructions given to

you by the S.S.P., Haridwar, in the FIR. What do you say

about that?

A. – Yes, it has not been mentioned. (in all these answers she

refers to the orders of the High Court, orders of the SSP, orders

of the District Court, but omitted to produce a single order and

that too despite being summoned to produce the same).

33. Q. – When the order to lodge the FIR was given by the

S.S.P., Haridwar, was there any specific reason for not

mentioning his order in the FIR?

A. – There was no special reason.

34. Q. – Do you know the dates of the order of the Hon’ble High

Court and the order of the S.S.P., Haridwar?

A. – I received the order of the S.S.P., Haridwar on 19.02.2018. I

do not presently remember the date of the order of the Hon’ble

High Court.

36. Q. – Is it correct that you lodged the FIR based on the letter

of Kanwar Amaninder Singh, the then Additional District Judge,

Haridwar, and that the date of the letter of Kanwar Amaninder

Singh was shown in the FIR?

A. – That statement is incorrect. I had neither received any order

from the Hon’ble High Court nor from Kanwar Amaninder Singh.

The FIR was lodged by me upon the orders of the then S.S.P.,

Haridwar.

37. To my knowledge, the entire proceedings of this matter were

not initiated on the basis of any email received from the Hon’ble

High Court. I have never even seen such an email.

38. The witness was shown paper no. 28, letter dated

29.01.2018, and paper no. 27, anonymous email, received from

the Hon’ble High Court, and was asked to state from which email

address the said anonymous email, paper no. 27, was sent?

A. – On paper no. 27, on the top right side below the date, it is

written “from Nitu <nitukumar321@rediffmail.com>”.

39. Q. – Before becoming the informant in this case, did you

make any inquiry or had any information about the sender of the

above anonymous email, i.e., the real informant?

A. – Paper no. 27 was never given to me at any time by anyone.

40. Q. – In paragraph no. 15 of your statement, you have

mentioned, “I only complied to the extent of the orders given to

me by the Hon’ble High Court.” The anonymous email was also

annexed with the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court, on

which you gave the said testimony. Hence, despite having

106

knowledge, you did not make any effort in this regard. Please

explain the reason?

A. – I would like to clarify that I did not receive any direct order

from the Hon’ble High Court. All orders were given to me by the

S.S.P., Haridwar. The aforesaid email mentioned above was also

not received by me. I had no knowledge regarding the said email

of the Hon’ble High Court.

43. Q. – It is also our contention that upon checking TrueCaller

this mobile number belongs to Smt. Gagandeep Mann alias

Gaganjot Mann, who is the wife of Kanwar Amaninder Singh.

What is your response?

A. – I do not have any information about this.

44. The girl Tiruja was recovered from the residence of

Smt. Deepali Sharma. A recovery memo was prepared in

this regard at the residence of Smt. Deepali Sharma. It is

correct to state that all proceedings at the residence of

Smt. Deepali Sharma were videographed.

At this stage, the witness was shown Folder

MAH00184.MP4 video recording and JUD file of the

videography taken at the residence of Smt. Deepali

Sharma on 29.01.2018, on the official laptop of the

Presenting Officer, and was asked to state where in the

video the recovery memo is being prepared. The witness,

on viewing the video, stated that in this video, some

members of the police team are seen writing at 14:44

hours as per the JUD file, but she cannot say what they

were writing.

49. I do not recall the names of the police

personnel shown writing in the video at present. However,

by watching the video and from my memory, I can say

that those writing are Inspectors, Sub-Inspector rank male

and female officers. I do not recall whether

signatures were obtained on the recovery memo at the

residence of Smt. Deepali Sharma. I do not recall whether

Smt. Deepali Sharma signed the recovery memo or not.

Q. – Can you say by looking at recovery memo paper no.

34 whether there are signatures of Smt. Deepali Sharma

on the recovery memo?

A. – I cannot say by looking at the recovery memo

whether it contains signatures of Smt. Deepali Sharma

or not.

107

51. Q. – After the case under Section 370 IPC was

registered, did the Investigation Officer record your

statement under Section 161 CrPC?

A. – The Investigation Officer recorded my statement.

52. Q. – Did you tell the Investigation Officer that “During

this period the girl cried quite a lot before me and

repeatedly said ‘I had faith in God that one day my Didi

will come and everything will become alright.’ This line

she repeated several times”?

A. – I do not remember.

53. Q. – It is our contention that you did not give the above

statement described in paragraph no. 52 to the

Investigation Officer. What is your response?

A. – I do not remember.

54. Q. – Did you write the above-mentioned statement in the

FIR?

A. – No, I did not write.

55. Q. – In the video, the girl is heard saying, “I do not

want to go, I want to stay with madam.” What is your

response regarding this?

A. – The witness, after watching the video, responded that

yes, the girl is saying this.

56. Q. – After Tiruja was recovered by the police, were her

father or mother contacted by anyone?

A. – I did not contact the parents of the girl. If anyone else

did, I am not aware of it.

57. Q. – Why was Tiruja not handed over to her father or

mother?

A. – Tiruja was handed over to the CWC (Child Welfare

Committee), and afterwards, it was as per the decision of the

CWC regarding her custody.

58. Q. – Was any effort made by the police to contact

Tiruja’s parents?

A. – I do not have knowledge about this.

59. Q. – Was any effort made to send Tiruja in police

custody to her parents?

A. – I do not have knowledge about this.

61. Q. – After Tiruja’s medical examination following her

recovery, was any further medical care provided during

her stay under CWC custody?

A. – I do not have knowledge about this.

64. Q. – It is our contention that children whose biological

parents are alive and ready and willing to take them into

108

their protection cannot be given into CWC custody; what is

your response?

A. – I will not answer a general knowledge question.

67. Q. – Is it correct to say that on 30.1.2018, you

yourself, with police force, took Tiruja from Shriram

Ashram to the court for recording her statement?

A. – That statement is incorrect.

68. Q. – Probation Officer PW 4, Shri Ashok Sharma, has

stated in his deposition that you went with him to the

court with Tiruja for giving her statement on 30.1.18.

What do you say about this?

A. – I cannot say about someone else’s statement.

Q. – Do you know about yourself? Can you say whether the

statement of Probation Officer PW 4 Ashok Sharma is

correct or incorrect?

A. – PW 4 Ashok Sharma’s statement is incorrect.

69. Q. – The statement of Kumari Tiruja dated 30.1.18

mentions that the police force was present in court, which

you were leading. What do you say about this?

A. – Without seeing the statement, I cannot say.

70. Q. – Why was everything that the girl said in the video

not written in the memo?

A. – Many people were present on the spot and everyone

was saying something. What the girl said on the spot, I

only realized after seeing the video. I did not realize at

that time what the girl or others said. Only now after

watching the video do I know what the girl said on the

spot.

71. Q. – It is my contention that everything the girl said on

the spot should have been written in the memo. What do

you say?

A. – Whatever came to our knowledge was written by us in

the memo.

72. Q. – Did you, ignorantly, leave out the statements

made by the girl in support of Smt. Deepali Sharma from

the memo?

A. – All statements of the girl that did not register with me

at the spot were not written in the memo.

74. Q. – I contend that when the memo was prepared the rescue

operation had already ended. What do you say?

A. – That statement is incorrect.

76. Q. – The memo appears in two different handwritings. What

is the reason?

109

A. – I do not have knowledge about this.

87. Q. – I contend that paper no. 35 is the letter sent by

Rachita Juyal to the SSP, Haridwar, on 29.1.18, and in this

letter there is no mention of sending any CD; is this

correct?

A. – The witness, after looking at paper no. 35, stated that

there is no mention of sending a CD.

88. Q. – It is my contention that in the CD, Kumari Tiruja

made all statements in favor of Smt. Deepali Sharma, and

that is why you intentionally did not send that CD to the

SSP; is this correct?

A. – That statement is incorrect.

89. Q. – I contend that by intentionally concealing

evidence, you also misled the Hon’ble High Court; is this

correct?

A. – That statement is incorrect.

90. Q. – The letter you mentioned from the Hon’ble District

Judge in your FIR was never issued from the District

Judge’s office; is this correct?

A. – I have no information about this.

91. Q. – You are requested to examine the investigation

file to answer in relation to question no. 90.

A. – The witness after seeing the file stated that there is

no letter from the District Judge to the SSP available in

this records, but there is a letter from the Registrar

General to the SSP.

92. Q. – After reading the letter of the Registrar General,

please state whether this letter is related to questions no.

90 and 91, i.e., is this the same letter you referred to in

your FIR?

A. – Yes, it is in relation to questions no. 90 and 91. This

letter, which was written by the Registrar General to the

SSP, is not the same letter as mentioned by me in the FIR.

I myself said that the order of the SSP, Haridwar, refers to

the order of the Hon’ble High Court.

110. Q. – You did not mention the name of the ADJ ranked

officer in your chief examination; please state his name.

A. – Kanwar Amaninder.

112. Q. – In paragraph 4 of your statement, you said, "The girl

pointed out a spot under the stairs, which was right near the

entrance where the police entered. There was no bed, mattress,

or sheet present, so when asked where she slept, the girl

nervously replied that the bed was wet and set out to dry." After

110

watching the video, please state what Kumari Tiruja said about

her sleeping place and bed.

A. – After watching the video, the witness replied that the girl

pointed to a spot near the dining table on the floor as her

sleeping place, and Tiruja said, "I feel afraid at night, so Madam

said that you sleep upstairs, and in my village I also sleep on the

ground." The word "mattress" was used at some place in the

video but the mattress was not shown. In the video, when asked

"Do you sleep here?" Tiruja replied yes, and about the sheet she

said she had asked Madam.

115. Q. – You said in your statements that when you asked

Tiruja about her clothes, she repeatedly cried and said,

"Didi, why have you come and why are you asking?" After

watching the video, at which time and place in the video

did Kumari Tiruja say this? Please clarify.

A. – After watching the video, the witness replied that she

could not exactly understand where or what she said.

116. Q. – It is my contention that Kumari Tiruja made no

such statement and all these things were created by you

like a film drama; is this correct?

A. – That statement is incorrect.

117. Q. – The witness was shown MAH00184.MP4 from 5:34 to

5:36, wherein ADJ Kanwar Amaninder Singh is directing Inspector

Jawahar Singh Rathore to "make the memo." What do you say

about this?

A. – Before the rescue operation the SSP, Haridwar closed the

team and issued instructions to everyone about their

responsibilities and division of work. In the video, ADJ Kanwar

Amaninder Singh asked Jawahar Singh Rathore whether he would

make the memo, and he agreed.

118. Q. – The witness was shown JUD folder from 5:43 to

5:46 in which ADJ Kanwar Amaninder Singh says "The

memo will be made; you will also make your memo—make

your own memo." Do you say these are the words spoken

by Kanwar Amaninder Singh or not?

A. – The witness viewed the folder and stated that Kanwar

Amaninder Singh did say these words, but whether the

word is "also" or "only" is unclear.

119. Q. – The witness was shown JUD folder from 18:13 to

18:17 and asked if in this you can be heard saying to

Kumari Tiruja, "Don’t worry, you have parents, don’t

worry." Is this correct?

A. – Yes, it is correct.

111

120. Q. – When you were accompanying Kumari Tiruja,

were her parents in Haridwar to your knowledge?

A. – This sentence was not said by me with any intention,

and I do not know where her parents were at that time.

121. Q. – The witness was shown JUD folder at 18:17 and

asked whether Tiruja can be heard saying "I want to stay

with Madam," to which you reply, "Will leave you soon"?

A. – Correct.

122. Q. – The witness was shown JUD folder from 19:15 to 19:18

and asked whether, as you were putting Kumari Tiruja in the

vehicle, she pleaded with you to let her go, and you replied "Will

leave you soon"?

A. – In the video clip from 19:15 to 19:18, you called Tanuja to

come out, she said "Let me go." I said, "We will leave you soon,"

to which you replied, "We will not leave you, we will make trouble

for you."

123. Q. – During 19:48 to 19:50 of the above folder, did

you say to the crying Tiruja, "Don’t worry, son, after

treatment you will be released"?

A. – Yes, that was said.

Q. – Are you aware that on 19.2.18 Kanwar Amaninder

Singh wrote, as in-charge District Judge Haridwar, a letter

to the SSP Haridwar to register an FIR against Smt.

Deepali Sharma, and that the SSP endorsed this letter

directing you to become the complainant in the FIR?

A. – No.

124. Q. – There are two folders in the CD, one of 20

minutes and the other about 13 minutes, but you said the

rescue operation took place from 2:45 to 3:45; I contend

the rest of the recording was deliberately cut by police.

What do you say?

A. – The CD was not cut by the police.”

137. We were constrained to extract the deposition in

extenso in view of the vague reasoning, conjectures and

surmises drawn. For instance, in Para 205, the I.O. would

conclude that 5-7 minutes times taken by the petitioner to

emerge from the house and greet the raiding party at the

main door was sufficient to terrorize the victim child. This 5-7

112

minutes is on the basis of the statement made by P.W.1 and

not on the basis of video evidence that was available. This

presumption is drawn without taking into account the fact

that the petitioner who was on Child Care Leave was nursing

a baby about a year old. The I.O. ought to have taken into

consideration the minimal time a lady would take to make

herself present and to an announced raiding party. In Para

206 and 207, she concludes that the child appeared

frightened. A child who is 16-17 years old would normally

know what a gun is and if a group of armed policemen

surround the house and child is battered by questions by

judges and police officers in uniform, any child would look

frighten. Again she lays weight with the deposition of P.W.4 in

Paragraphs 1, 2, 12, 14, 19, 47 and 51. The conclusion is a

mere conjecture. As noted supra, any teen aged girl child

should be scared and frightened if the child senses that she is

going to be taken away by strangers. In fact, this theory of

terrorizing the child by the petitioner is controverted by the

evidence of P.W., who in Para 4 of her examination-in-chief,

states that as they were asking the girl child to call the

madam, implying the petitioner, at the very moment madam

emerged. This contradictory piece of evidence is conveniently

ignored. In fact the deposition of P.W.is self-contradictory. In

one breath, she says that the child was continuously

conversing with them, that too, casually, but in the same

113

breath, she would depose that fear was apparent on the face

and the child was chewing her lips in anguish and anxiously

and that the petitioner and her daughter were casting

venomous looks. If she was scared and frightened to the

extent of chewing her lips, then the statement that the child

was also conversing casually with the raiding party is difficult

for any prudent person to accept.

138. The Inquiry Officer as attempted to make a

“mountain out of a molehill”, the so called unsolicited

statement by the child at the door step that the madam is

taking good care of her and that too, in the absence of the

petitioner, is ground enough to infer adversely against the

petitioner. The alleged victim is not a small girl, but the girl

whose medical tests have revealed to be about 17 years old

and is of an age where one can safely infer that the child of

this age can think rationally and act a little maturely.

139. In Para 213 the I.O. records that the petitioner has

nowhere explained the delay of 5-7 minutes in emerging from

the house. As explained supra, she was the lactating mother

and nursing a child more a year old, and as noted above, the

I.O. has completely omitted to appreciate the deposition of

P.W.5 that the petitioner emerged on her own.

140. Be that as it may, the cornerstone for conjectures

and surmises drawn by the I.O. is the so called report said to

114

have been submitted by P.W.3. That apart, the reliance on

the statement said to have been recorded by one Varun

Kumar, ADJ, is sought to be relied upon. The very crucial

question is posed to P.W.3, asking him to explain the

difference in the form of the report, i.e. the statement of

P.W.1 said to have been recorded by the said Varun Kumar,

ADJ on 30.01.2018, which is in a typed format and the

statement of the child said to have been recorded on the said

date and by the said person, which is in manuscript or

handwritten, to which P.W.3 would answer that only P.W.1 or

the said Varun Kumar, ADJ can answer the query.

Unfortunately, the attempts to have the said Varun Kumar,

ADJ examined, have been rejected by the very same I.O. In

fact, the said statement has been trashed by P.W.2- the

alleged victim, who has said that when she was asked to read

the statement recorded by Varun Kumar, ADJ, she was

threatened by P.W.5 ASP to sign the statement and she has

further stated that P.W.5 made the statement before Varun

Kumar, ADJ.

141. As noticed by us and as observed by us

hereinabove, the manner, in which, the wound certificate has

been sought to be proved, is one of the primary reasons

which shocked us. Nowhere has been the I.O. stated as to

how the pharmacist or the nurse are qualified or trained or

competent enough to assess the injury, or to gaze the age of

115

the injury or speak about the wound certificate. This

approach, by itself, would suffice for this Court to reject the

report, as the I.O. would like one and all to believe that the

injuries recorded in the wound certificate were caused by the

petitioner and hence, this conduct of assaulting, torturing,

tormenting etc. are conduct which would fall foul of Rule 3(1)

and 3(2) of the Rules of 2002. If that was so, then the

Department ought to have got the documents marked and

spoken about by a qualified doctor and not through the nurse

or pharmacist.

142. It is not the case of either the Department or the

Inquiry Officer (I.O.) that there was no qualified doctor

working in the hospital. In fact, the approach of the I.O. is to

give weightage to the statements made outside the inquiry

and discard the statements made in the course of inquiry.

Such an approach is, by itself, vitiates the appreciation of the

evidence on record rendering the appreciation perverse.

143. The statements which are openly said to have been

recorded and obtained under coercion from P.W.2, a report

attributing the statements to various persons (30.01.2018)

which statements are not recorded or part of any record,

have been given undue weightage and importance by the I.O,

which the statements made on oath in the inquiry

proceedings or in the presence of the I.O. are brushed aside

116

with a single reasoning that the witness is influence or the

witness is bought over without there being even a shred of

evidence to demonstrate that the witness has been influence

or bought over. In fact, two crucial counter-questions by the

victim to the Presenting Officer and the I.O. should have been

enough for the I.O. to wrap-up the inquiry if the inquiry was

fair and square. The suggestion by the Presenting Officer that

the victim girl was starved and not given food for several

days, the alleged victim would counter the Presenting Officer

with a query, “how would I survive if I was not given food?”

To another suggestion that the injuries had been caused

because the petitioner attacked her with a knife, the child

would reply “if I had been attacked with a knife, then would I

have not died?” These answers, by themselves, are indicative

of the maturity of the alleged victim. The statements made by

the child, which clearly incriminate P.W.1 and P.W.5 are not

even considered, much less, appreciated. The I.O. has failed

to observe that the statement made outside the judicial or

quasi-judicial proceedings would be of evidentiary value only

if rebutted on oath in the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings

and if not rebutted by the other side. In the inquiry, the

approach is to add weightage to the statements made outside

the inquiry proceedings and to reject all the un-rebutted

evidences deposed and recorded in the inquiry proceedings,

117

which evidences, depositions remained un-rebutted or

disproved.

144. Now coming to the evidence of DW2 and DW3, the

Inquiry Officer has simply wished it away. In fact, the I.O.

has cast the burden of disproving the charges on the

petitioner. We say so in view of the line of cross-examination

and the line of reasoning adopted by the I.O. The I.O. has

drawn the conclusion by shifting the burden of proof of the

negative circumstances on the petitioner, which in our

considered opinion, is contrary to all known canons of

evidence and service jurisprudence. The fact remains that the

charge is framed by the Disciplinary Authority after collection

of evidence and the alleged delinquent is called upon to

explain the charge in the background of the evidence placed

in support of the charge. The implication being that the

material collected demonstrates the charge. If that be the

norm, then the approach of the I.O. cannot be described as

anything else but perverse. The I.O. has discarded all the

evidences that demolish the charge. If this is the approach on

the one side, the I.O. has not set out any material evidence

which could even be assessed or appreciated as material

which even superficially demonstrates the charge of a

conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant/ Judicial

Officer. This, in our considered opinion, constitutes a grave

irregularity that vitiates the conclusions drawn. The approach

118

of the I.O. and the Disciplinary Authority causes intrigue. On

the one hand, both the Disciplinary Authority and the I.O.

shun the best evidence available in the form of the peons who

were assigned by the District Court to work in the house of

the delinquent officer named Prahlad and another. It is not

that either the Disciplinary Authority or the I.O. or the District

Judge who “verified the complaint”, were unaware of. In fact,

the deployment of these two peons has been revealed on the

day of the ‘raid’ itself. The answer elicited in the course of

cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W3 and P.W.5 would reveal

that the P.W.2 the victim girl had informed during the search

that the red colour sweater was given to her by the peon Shri

Prahlad. Secondly, P.W.1 in the course of his cross-

examination has stated that the two peons working in the

house of the petitioner had informed him in June, 2017 that

the petitioner was beating the victim girl. This is forthcoming

in Para 36 of the P.W.1’s deposition. It is pertinent to note

that the information alleged to have been shared by the two

peons was that the girl was being beaten but PW1 does not

even say that the two peons even alleged that the victim girl

was employed as domestic help or maid servant by the

petitioner. He would further elaborate by assigning a reason

for this disclosure by the peons by stating that in June, 2017

the petitioner had a fight with two peons regarding her leave.

If that be so, any prudent person would safely infer that the

119

relationship between the petitioner and the two peons may

not be normal, much less cordial. Despite this revelation,

neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the I.O. deemed it fit to

summon the peons and examine them in the inquiry. Why

these two peons have not been examined is the million dollar

question.

145. We have consciously extracted the huge volume of

deposition in order to better understand the stand and

approach of the Inquiry Officer. The volume of evidence

reproduced hereinabove certainly does not aid the case of the

Department or in proving the charge and this is the volume of

evidence that has been ignored by the Inquiry Officer. Our

detailed perusal of the 660 paragraph report and the one

distinguishing feature that we discerned was that the I.O. has

predominantly used the report of the District Judge

(30.01.2018) as a shield to justify the non-consideration of

the huge volume of evidence which clearly disprove the

charge. It is settled law that a preliminary inquiry report

cannot be put against the delinquent as it is something which

is prepared without an opportunity to the delinquent officer.

In the instant case too, it is clearly admitted by P.W. 3 and 5

that though the victim girl was questioned both nearly the

house and the office of the SSP, the same was not recorded

or rather the answers said to have been given by the girl are

not a matter of record and this fact is squarely admitted by

120

both P.W.3 and P.W.5. As regards the statement recorded by

the 4

th

ADJ Varun Kumar pointed questions to P.W.3 during

his cross-examination regarding the statement of P.W.1 being

in a typed format and the statement of P.W.2 (victim) being

in manuscript did not elicit any response rather P.W.3 would

resort to an answer of convenience saying that he is not

aware about the same. The answer sounds hollow for the

reason that the said document, i.e. the statement of P.W.1

and P.W.2 were forwarded to the High Court by the District

Judge, i.e. P.W.3. The extensive reliance on the preliminary

report by the I.O., in our considered opinion, completely

vitiates the inquiry. It is a document that has not only been

prepared behind the back of the petitioner, but is also not

authenticated by the persons to whom certain statements/

facts are attributed. In this regard, we place reliance on the

observation and finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in

Niramala J. Jhala’s case in Paras 40 to 48 as under:-

“40. The appellant had not married at that point of time, as per

her statement. Even this fact has been admitted by Shri C.B. Gajjar,

Advocate. Given the above set of facts, the complainant is seen talking

about the appellant’s husband for collecting money on her behalf. The

High Court had failed to notice the above fact and had been making

attempts to keep aside all such relevant factors in a case, where there

was no direct evidence.

41. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have to consider the most

relevant issue involved in this case. Admittedly, the enquiry officer, the

High Court on administrative side as well on judicial side, had placed a

very heavy reliance on the statement made by Shri C.B. Gajjar,

Advocate, Mr G.G. Jani, complainant and that of Shri P.K. Pancholi,

Advocate, in the preliminary inquiry before the Vigilance Officer.

Therefore, the question does arise as to whether it was permissible for

either of them to take into consideration their statements recorded in

the preliminary inquiry, which had been held behind the back of the

appellant, and for which she had no opportunity to cross-examine either

of them.

121

42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v.

North Eastern Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992] , held that the purpose of

holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged

misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima

facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been

committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary

inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to

take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the

delinquent is required to be held.

43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India [AIR

1964 SC 1854] a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar

view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular

inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of

Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be

held ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government

though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought

from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage,

he has no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction

of the Government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held. The

Court further held as under : (AIR p. 1862, para 12)

“12. … There must therefore be no confusion between the two

enquiries and it is only when the government proceeds to hold a

departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the

government servant one of the three major punishments

indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to

the protection of that article [, nor prior to that].” (emphasis

added)

(See also Govt. of India v. Tarak Nath Ghosh [(1971) 1 SCC 734

: AIR 1971 SC 823. Ed. : See paras 10 to 14 thereof in SCC

where the distinction between a preliminary and regular enquiry

has been discussed. Tarak Nath Ghosh has however been

overruled on other points in P.R. Nayak v. Union of India, (1972)

1 SCC 332 and T.V. Nataraj v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 2 SCC

32.] .)

44. In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of

Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 299 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 152 : AIR 1997 SC

2148] this Court dealt with the issue and held as under:

“… a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry

conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is

only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated

against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the

Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and, whether

preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by

observing principles of natural justice of (sic) nor, remains of no

consequence.” (emphasis added)

45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded

in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the

delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine

the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence

would be violative of the principles of natural justice.

46. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra

[(2013) 4 SCC 465 : AIR 2013 SC 58] this Court while placing reliance

upon a large number of earlier judgments held that cross-examination is

an integral part of the principles of natural justice, and a statement

recorded behind back of a person wherein the delinquent had no

opportunity to cross-examine such persons, the same cannot be relied

upon.

122

47. The preliminary enquiry may be useful only to take a prima

facie view, as to whether there can be some substance in the allegation

made against an employee which may warrant a regular enquiry.

48. “A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt

but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is

led in support of the case were [to be] believed. While determining

whether a prima facie case had been made out or not the relevant

consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at

the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion

which could be arrived at on that evidence.” (Vide Martin Burn Ltd. v.

R.N. Banerjee [AIR 1958 SC 79] , AIR p. 85, para 27) [See also

Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. B. Dasappa [AIR

1960 SC 1352] , V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1980 Supp SCC

249 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 849 : AIR 1980 SC 1382] , Dalpat Kumar v.

Prahlad Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 719 : AIR 1993 SC 276] and Cholan

Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam [(2005) 3 SCC 241 : 2005

SCC (L&S) 395 : AIR 2005 SC 570] .”

146. The allegations or the basis for demonstrating the

charge of conduct unbecoming of Judicial officer and failing to

maintain integrity and devotion to the duty under Rule 3(1)

and 3 (2) is that a minor girl has been employed as a

domestic help or maid servant by the petitioner/ delinquent

officer, contrary to provisions of Rule 3(4). This is also the

sum and substance of the complaint. The charge

unfortunately is vague. Whether defiance or violation of the

prohibition under Rule 3(4) being a separate misconduct

could also be construed as a misconduct under rule 3(1) and

3(2)? When a particular act has been categorized as an

exclusive charge prima facie holding it as constituting a

misconduct under the other general provision, in our

considered opinion, is farfetched and in our humble opinion,

unsustainable. In fact, the charge does not say as to whether

the Disciplinary Authority considers the child as defined under

the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)

123

Act, 1986 or as a child under the Juvenile Justice Act. This

distinction assumes significance as the age of the alleged

victim as on the date of the alleged rescue was determined to

be 17 years and this is probably why the I.O. has contrived a

finding that the minor has been employed as a maid/

domestic help for the last three years. This conclusion is

shocking as the fact remains that none of the witnesses

examined on behalf of the ‘prosecution’ (this is how the

Disciplinary Authority is favourably addressed by the I.O.)

have even whispered about this, much less, deposed with

regard to such a fact. It is not even the case of the

‘anonymous complainant’ that the victim girl has been

working as a maid/ domestic help for the last three years.

Despite the absence of any evidence to this effect, yet the

I.O. has drawn a conclusion that the alleged victim has been

employed as a maid/ domestic help even before she

completed the age of 14 years. Such a prejudicial conclusion

without being based on any evidence whatsoever is merely a

conjecture and is indicative of a biased approach. In fact, the

prosecution that was launched by the State was one of

trafficking as defined under Section 370 of the Indian Penal

Code. Section 370 makes the offence of exploitation of a

person or persons including a minor as a punishable offence.

The expression ‘exploitation’ by Explanation 1 and the same

reads as under:-

124

“Explanation 1. The expression ‘exploitation’ shall include

any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation,

slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the forced

removal of organs.”

147. Unfortunately, for the prosecution the State

withdrew the charge and we think rightly so, as from the

inception or commencement of ‘raid’ i.e. 29.01.2018, the

child has been consistently speaking well and positively about

the petitioner. The admissions elicited during the course of

cross-examinations of various witnesses examined on behalf

of the prosecution, running into reams of pages, more

particularly, about the statements made by the alleged victim

and recorded in the camera probably incentivized the

withdrawal of the criminal prosecution by the State.

148. Now addressing the intrigue of non-examination of

the best available witnesses or “eye-witnesses” by the

prosecution, we are constrained to conclude that the same is

not an unintended act. Despite the knowledge that the two

peons were working in the house, the District Judge P.W.3 did

not even deem it necessary to even have a cursory

interaction with them before mobilizing the mammoth raiding

party and the raid itself. Probably the omission could have

been due to an apprehension that the peons may record

statements contrary to the contents of the complaint. None of

the other witnesses have even stated that they have

witnessed the beatings or that they have heard the girl crying

125

out in pain, nor is there any medical evidence to demonstrate

the beatings. P.W.3 has waxed eloquently about the

information shared with him by P.W.1 and as noted P.W.1

himself claims that he was informed about the beatings by

the two peons rendering him a hearsay witness. It is not even

the case of P.W.1 that he ever heard the alleged victim even

crying out in pain. Despite this serious lacunae the conclusion

to the contrary by the I.O. is baffling and that too, in the face

of the categorical assertion by P.W.2 the alleged victim who

has not only negated the allegation of assault, but also the

allegations of being engaged as a domestic help/ maid

servant. She has categorically stated that she would have

been killed or dead had she been assaulted with the knife as

suggested by the P.O. To the further suggestion that she was

starved and not given food for days together, she has

countered the P.O. with a similar answer. Lastly, with regard

to the suggestion of she being made to work and do all the

domestic chores throughout the day, she has countered the

Presenting Officer by stating that there was no necessity for

her to do any work when all the work were being done by the

two peons. At least, after the department was mocked in such

a straight forward fashion, any prudent thinking person would

have made an endeavour to have the said peons examined as

witnesses. Prudence would have required at least the I.O. to

summon them as witnesses, but the same was not done,

126

despite the Department reserving such a right in them, i.e. to

examine other witnesses during the course of the inquiry

itself. This omission on the part of the I.O. and the

Department, in our considered opinion, kicks at the very root

of the charges levelled against the petitioner and rendering

the inquiry arbitrary and farcical.

149. Apart from the above, the reliance on the

“verification process and report of P.W.3, the then District

Judge”, by the I.O. to hold the misconduct as proved is, in

our considered opinion, contrary to the settled law. It is

settled law that preliminary inquiry cannot be put against the

delinquent, as the officer is not part of the process and is not

given an opportunity. The inquiry report, though gigantic, in

our considered opinion, is completely bereft of any

substantive material or incriminating evidence.

150. We place reliance on the ruling rendered by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in case of the Nirmala J. Jhala vs. State

of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (4) SCC 301 , which in our

opinion is a compendium and guide for inquiries relating to

judicial officers. The Hon’ble Apex Court has, in fact,

conducted a detailed research by placing reliance on several

landmark judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court

itself while pronouncing the judgment in the said case.

127

151. In fact, the Apex Court by a catena of judgments

has held that more weight should be attached to the evidence

tendered before the I.O. Despite the settled position and

despite the screening of the best evidence and witnesses, the

I.O. has inferred in favour of the department/ prosecution

when it should have been the other way round. P.W.1 relies

on the information provided by the peons to vindicate his

statement. P.W.2 relies on the said two peons to vindicate

her stand that she never did any household chores. P.W.3

admits the deployment of the two peons, but yet for reasons

best known ‘prosecution and the I.O.’, they have been kept

away from the inquiry. If the two peons had been examined,

it would have been decisive either way. Being potential eye-

witnesses, they could deposed in aid of the charge, or

deposed negating the charge.

152. As regards the points for consideration 4 and 5

framed by the I.O. does not require indetail consideration. We

have perused reasoning and as noted supra, no corroborative

evidence or independent witness has been relied upon and

the I.O. has yet again resorted to reliance on the report dated

30.01.2018 and the examination-in-chief of the witnesses,

P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5, though the report is marked,

contents have not been proved.

128

153. In view of the above, we find that the petitioner

has been wrongly held guilty of misconduct of a non-existent

charge. We say so for the following reasons:

1. The charge of committing misconduct under Rule 3(1)

and 3(2) is vague and ambiguous.

2. The failure to frame a charge under Rule 3(4) when

the imputations appear to be ingredients of Rule 3(4), in

our opinion, is a convoluted exercise.

3. The Department and the I.O. erred in attempting to

shift the burden of proof upon the petitioner, particularly

in the matter of proof placed by the petitioner to

demonstrate the instrument used to send the

anonymous complaint to the High Court. The reasoning

that the petitioner failed to prove because she did not

examine the service provider amounts to demanding

proof of proof, i.e. rejecting the information furnished by

the office of SSP.

4. The conclusions arrived at by the I.O. is not an

objective assessment of facts or evidence, but on

subjective satisfaction.

5. The Department and the I.O. erred in keeping out

relevant material for consideration despite none of the

witnesses claiming to be direct witnesses or eye-

witnesses.

6. The Inquiry Officer erred in holding P.W.2 as a hostile

witness and being influenced by the petitioner, which in

our considered opinion, perverse as no material has

been placed to demonstrate as to how or when the

petitioner has been able to bring influence on the

prosecution witness.

7. The I.O. erred in discarding the evidence of P.W.4 on

the ground that the witness is brought over without even

129

a suggestion to that extent being put to the witness, is

perverse and vitiates the inquiry report in entirety.

8. The failure of the I.O. to appreciate the admissions

elicited in the course of cross-examination of P.W.1,

P.W.3 and P.W.5 renders the report a biased one.

9. The failure of the I.O. to appreciate the evidence of

D.W.3, the petitioner and completely eschewing from

consideration despite serious allegations, is indicative of

a bias.

10. The failure to appreciate any of the circumstance

favouring the petitioner by itself vitiates the inquiry

report.

11. The approach of the I.O. to differently read the

circumstances against the Department and appreciating

the evidence contrary to the simple language of the

deposition renders the report perverse, arbitrary and

unsustainable.

154. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The

impugned resolution/ orders dated 07.10.2020, 14.10.2020,

16.10.2020, passed by the Competent Authority imposing the

penalty of removing the petitioner from service, and the

impugned order dated 20.10.2020, passed by the

Government of Uttarakhand are set-aside. The inquiry report

dated 09.06.2020 is also set-aside. The petitioner shall be

deemed to have continued in service from the date of

dismissal/ removal from service. The petitioner shall be

entitled all service benefits, including seniority and shall be

assigned consequential seniority and placed above the

persons who were below her in order of seniority and with all

130

consequential benefits. In respect of salary and all other

monetary benefits, in view of long period and passage of

time, we are of the opinion that it would be inequitable to

burden the State Exchequer to pay 100% of the arrears for

work not rendered. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled to

50% of the all monetary benefit, including pay etc. The pay

shall be revised and re-fixed. The monetary benefits shall be

settled within a period of six weeks, failing which the

petitioner would be entitled to the monetary benefits with

interest @10%.

155. The writ petition stands ordered accordingly. In

view of the extraordinary circumstances and keeping in view,

the prayers involved, we desist from imposing cost.

156. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)

Dated: 06

th

January, 2026

NISHANT