STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PHOOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal before this Court against the order dtd. 9/9/2020, passed by a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench). By the impugned order the Division Bench has upheld the order of the learned Single Judge which had allowed the writ petition of the present respondent, quashing his dismissal from service.

(2.) Respondent Phool Singh had entered Rajasthan Police Service as a constable, in the year 1987. The same year, while he was posted at the Police Station Mania, District Dholpur (Rajasthan), he allegedly committed a criminal offence, apart from an act of gross indiscipline. On the fateful day of 15/10/1987, he was wandering around the town in the evening, in company of one Lokman. Respondent was off duty but in police uniform, when he allegedly caught one Mahesh Kumar and demanded Rs.100.00 from him. On his refusal, Mahesh Kumar was asked to show the papers of his motorcycle and when he failed to show these papers, Phool Singh took hold of this motorcycle, and then tried to run away with it. Meanwhile, due to the alarm raised by Mahesh Kumar a crowd also gathers in support of Mahesh Kumar. At this point, Phool Singh is alleged to have waved a gun ("Pachpera"), towards the crowd but was nevertheless chased by the crowd, till Phool Singh succeeds in getting inside his house, which was nearby. Once inside his house, he fires from his gun which injures the inmates of the house, i.e., his family members, besides damaging the property. All this results in lodging of an FIR (No. 146/1987) against the respondent, at Police Station Mania, under Ss. 392, 307 IPC and Sec. 34 of Police Act read with Sec. 3/25 of Arms Act. After investigation in the case a chargesheet was filed against Phool Singh and Lokman. Ultimately charges were framed under Sec. 392 IPC and Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act by the Trial Court. The Trial Court then convicts Phool Singh, under Sec. 392 IPC and Sec. 3/25 Arms Act and sentences him for one-year rigorous imprisonment and fine for each of the above two offences, with default stipulations, vide order dtd. 31/3/1994. The coaccused Lokman is acquitted. This order was challenged by Phool Singh in appeal and the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur, allows the appeal, and sets aside the order of the Trial Court, giving "benefit of doubt" to the accused.

(3.) Meanwhile, a departmental proceeding had also been initiated against the delinquent constable on three charges, which are as follows:-