LAWS(RAJ)-2000-9-22

MANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On September 01, 2000
MANI KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THAT the appellant/petitioner was serving as police Constable. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 25. 9. 87 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short `the CCA Rules' ). It was alleged against the petitioner that in the night of 30. 8. 87, he was making bad jestures to the wife of a constable by sitting on the wall and seeing her husband, he ran away. When he was called by S. H. O. , Sadar Bazar, Police Station, Jodhpur, he was found fully drunk. He ran away from the police station and thereafter produced forged medical certificate from M. G. Hospital, Jodhpur for remaining absent from duty without any prior leave from 25. 8. 87 to 30. 8. 87. After recording the evidence and giving him full opportunity of cross examining them, the enquiry officer found the charges levelled against him proved. On the basis of the enquiry report, the respondent no. 3 removed him from service by an order dated 30. 3. 88. He preferred an appeal before the D. I. G. , Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur who was also dismissed on 14. 7. 88. The review petition filed before the State of Rajasthan was also dismissed on 15. 9. 90. Therefore, he filed writ petition no. 778/92 before this Court. The same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 6. 8. 97. Hence, this special appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Harish Purohit for the appellant submitted that while passing the impugned order of removal from service, the disciplinary authority had not supplied him the enquiry report, therefore, the impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside. This very argument was raised before the learned Single Judge and the same was rejected in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India & Ors vs. Mohd. Ramjan Khan (1); S. P. Vishvanathan vs. Union of India & Ors. (2); Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad and Ors. vs. B. Karunakaran & Ors (3) and S. K. Singh vs. Central Bank of India

(3.) EXCEPT the aforesaid contentions, no other contention was raised.