DINESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Dinesh Singh against the order of penalty dated 15.07.1991, by which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect and the order dated 10.02.1993, by which the appeal filed against the earlier order was dismissed by the appellate authority.

(2.) The petitioner and two other delinquents were served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958'). A joint enquiry was conducted against all the three delinquents. First charge against the petitioner was that while he was posted at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, he went to Police Chowki of Gandhi Nagar on 29.12.1990 without permission of the competent authority, and, without there being any justification, he illegally detained one Shri B.D. Kriplani and, threatened and misbehaved him. Charge No.2 against the petitioner is that he along-with Shri Dhanpal Singh, Constable, extracted a sum of Rs.1000/- from said Shri Kriplani, thereby brought a bad name to the Police Department. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet denying charges, which is on record as Annexure-3. In reply, the petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of confusion of identity. In the preliminary enquiry, the then Additional Superintendent of Police (South), Shri P.D. Sharma, found the charges proved against the petitioner as well as Shri Rajendra Singh and Dhanpal Singh, whereas he was never associated with the enquiry nor the statements of the witnesses were recorded in his presence. He was also not given any opportunity to present his view point. Had he been given opportunity of hearing, he would have most probably persuaded the enquiry officer to take a different view. In the reply, the petitioner, however, stated that there was no allegation of extracting money from the said B.D. Kriplani as far as the petitioner is concerned and Shri Kriplani himself did not support the allegations in his statement. The petitioner denied having gone to the Police Chowki. On the contrary, it was his defence that he was on duty with Shri Umesh Bhardwaj, the Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, from 29.12.1990 at 8.10 AM to 30.01.1990 at 1.00 AM, which was proved from the statement of Shri Mahaveer Singh, Head Moharir. The enquiry officer found the charges proved against all the delinquents and submitted his report, which is on the record as Annexure-4. The disciplinary officer, by order dated 15.07.1991, awarded penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect to all the delinquents including the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur, vide his order dated 10.02.1993. This writ petition been filed at the instance of petitioner Dinesh Singh, who is one of the delinquents.

(3.) Shri Karanpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the enquiry officer has utterly failed to appreciate that the complainant, in his statement, categorically averred that neither the petitioner nor other two delinquents were those persons who illegally detained him or allegedly extracted money. When a specific query was put to him as to any of the three delinquents were amongst those who illegally detained him or extracted money, he replied in negative. Another query made to him as to why names of three persons were averred, he further replied that he, on the basis of some source of information, quoted the names of Shri Dhanpal Singh and Rajendra Singh in complaint, but did not name the petitioner Dinesh Singh.