SHIV DAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 11. 11. 99 (Annx. 5), by which the claim of reinstatement of petitioner in Police Department has been turned down.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had joined the police service and when he was working as Cashier, F. I. R. No. 237/93 under Section 468/420 read with Section 409 I. P. C. was lodged against him with the allegation that he had misappropriated a huge amount of Rs. 45,784/-in total by manipulating the record. After investigation, challan was filed against him and during pendency of the criminal trial, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. A charge-sheet dated 13. 8. 93, consisting of eleven charges of misappropriation, embezzlement and manipulation of record, were levelled against him. Petitioner filed reply to the said charge-sheet on 28. 9. 93 denying the allegations. THE Appointing Authority, vide order dated 30. 9. 93, appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nathdwara as the Enquiry Officer, who, after conducting the full-fledged inquiry and recording the evidence of various witnesses, submitted the enquiry report, wherein all the charges stood proved against the petitioner. Petitioner was given a show cause notice, to which he replied and also claimed an opportunity of hearing personally. THE Disciplinary Authority heard the petitioner in person on 31. 3. 94 and agreeing with the inquiry report, imposed the punishment of removal, vide order dated 31. 3. 94 (Annx. 2 ). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was also rejected vide order dated 19. 11. 94 (Annx. 3 ). Petitioner faced the criminal trial. However, vide judgment and order dated 6. 5. 99 (Annx. 1), he had been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. After acquittal, petitioner made an application dated 28. 8. 99 to the Competent Authority to reinstate him on the ground of acquittal in criminal case and the said applicant has been rejected vide order dated 11. 11. 99 (Annx. 5 ). Hence this petition.

(3.) IF we compare the list of witnesses in both the cases, only Raj Mal Jain has been common and even before the trial Court, he has deposed that he had prepared Ex. P. 10/1, which runs to 26 pages and the same had been prepared on the basis of the record, according to which there had been an embezzlement by the delinguent/accused to the tune of Rs. 45,784/ -. During this period of manipulation, the account books had been in possession of the accused. This evidence has not been disbelieved. The acquittal is based on benefit of doubt, mainly that the person, in whose presence recovery to the tune of Rs. 17,180/-was made from his residence, had turned hostile. Therefore, it is not a case where the evidence recorded in the criminal proceedings had been relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority or the same set of witnesses had been examined. The order of the Disciplinary Authority makes it clear that at the time of personal hearing, the delinquent was put a specific question regarding embezzlement and he answered that he was not in a position to say anything. The disciplinary Authority has recorded the finding that he did not deny it. He himself made a confession before the Disciplinary Authority that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 28,996/-on oral instruction of the Reserve Inspector and the entry of the same had not been made in any account book. He had further made a statement before the Disciplinary Authority that he had disbursed a sum of Rs. 13,575/-to the Constables but did not make the entry in the account books. Therefore, it cannot be said that any of the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has any bearing in the instant case.