DHANJIBHAI PREMALBHAI RATHVA Vs. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr K M Sheth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ramnandan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. This Special Civil Application has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.6.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Divisional Security, RPF, Western Railways, Vadodara by which the petitioner was removed from service, vide order dated 31.12.1996 passed in Appeal and the order dated 23.6.1997 passed in the Revision Application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner, Dhanjibhai Premabhai Rathwa was working as Railway Protection Force as Constable with Asarwa Railway police station at the relevant time. On 3.12.1995, an incident of theft occurred in which detergent cakes of Nirma were alleged to have been stolen. The petitioner was suspended from service on 6.12.1995 pending inquiry on the charge of negligence of duty. In the departmental inquiry, it was held by the respondents that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. He was removed from service by order dated 30.9.1996. The petitioner had preferred appeal against the same which came to be dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 31.12.1996. Thereafter the petitioner filed revision against the order of the Appellate Authority which was also rejected by the Revisional Authority by order dated 16.8.1997. Thereupon the petitioner preferred the present petition invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A parallel criminal complaint came to be filed against the petitioner and other persons under Section 3 of the Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr K M Sheth for the petitioner has contended that though the petitioner requested the Inquiry Officer not to proceed with the departmental inquiry as criminal case is pending in the criminal court at Ahmedabad but no reply had been given to the effect that whether his request was granted or not and the inquiry proceedings were held ex-parte. It is contended by the learned counsel that the charge against the petitioner is not proved as there was no evidence. He has submitted that Mr M.S. Yadav, Supervisor had got information through Constable Sursingh that the petitioner had informed Sursingh that there was defect in the lid of the container at the time of giving charge and since it was midnight, on the next day i.e. 5.12.1995 on opening the container, they found some detergent cakes were missing.