SHIV PAUL SINGH SLATHIA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, SWP No. 347/1991, has been filed on 17th of April, 1991. Shorn of details, the facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed constable by the order of Superintendent of Police, Jammu, though it has wrongly been written as Superintendent of Police, Kathua in the petition and was temporarily sent to work with Dy. Superintendent of Police, Crime and Railways, Jammu, where a complaint was filed against the petitioner regarding his misconduct by way of using the police Jeep No. 8248 -JKN without permission. The petitioner was the Driver of the said Jeep which was at the disposal of Respondent No.4.

(2.) IT is alleged that on 11 -12 -1985, the petitioner, who was plying the said Jeep, was relieved by Respondents No.4 with the direction to park the Jeep at DPL, Jammu so that in case of emergency, the said Jeep could be requisitioned. On the same day, late hours in the night, the petitioner took the vehicle without permission of Respondent NO.4 or any other competent authority. He was noticed driving the said vehicle near Dogra Chowk, Jammu by SHO, Police Station, Nowabad. Subsequently, he was seen plying the said vehicle in Ambhala without proper permission. However, on this count, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Respondent No.4, recorded the evidence, framed charge against him on 10 -1 -1986. Not only this, Criminal challan was also filed by the concerned Police Station before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction against him. He filed appeal against the dismissal to the higher authorities which came to be decided vide order No.26 of 1987 dated 30th January, 1987 by virtue of which his appeal was rejected by DIG. He filed the review against this order which too came to be decided vide order No. 33/88/11877 -78 dated 28th of May, 1990 and the review petition was also rejected.

(3.) THE main points raised in the petition are that, no statement of allegations was issued to the petitioner regarding the charges and the evidence was recorded at his back. Then after the evidence was recorded, charge sheet was framed against the accused. The accused replied the charges. Thereafter, no evidence was recorded. No right of cross -examination was given to him. According to the petitioner, inquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules. It was statement of allegations, which was to be given to the petitioner first then the charges were to be framed and then evidence was to be recorded. But here cart has been put before the horse. Preliminary evidence has been recorded. Charge was framed, thereafter no evidence was recorded, nor the petitioner was asked to enter upon his defence. So rules of Natural Justice also have been flouted in this inquiry. The finding was prepared and he was dismissed from the service