HANUMANA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the order dated 29.05.1997 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No. 1814/1992) filed by the petitioner -appellant against the orders dated 12.06.1991 and 03.01.1992 passed respectively by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that the appellant Hanumana Ram, while working as constable with the respondents, was served with a memorandum alongwith charge -sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 on the allegations: (i) that he was a habitual absentee and was earlier dismissed from services on 31.03.1983 but was reinstated on 21.11.1986 while withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect; (ii) that he was not attentive to the duties and in about 81/2 years of service, remained absent 40 times and presented himself to the higher officers in an indisciplined manner; (iii) that whenever posted on a duty, he was habitual of levelling allegations against the officers and to blackmail the higher officers; (iv) that he got trapped one Mohan Singh, Inspector Wireless, on the allegation of demand of bribe of Rs. 100/ - though the matter had been of the said Mohan Singh demanding the amount of Rs. 150/ - given as loan to him; and (v) that he filed a false report with mala fide intention to the Anti -Corruption Bureau and thereby got Mohan Singh trapped in a false case.

(3.) IN response to the aforesaid charge -sheet, the petitioner -appellant stated by way of his application dated 09.04.1990 (Annex. 3) that the documents mentioned in the list had not been supplied to him without which the reply could not be filed and hence, the allegations were incorrect and baseless. The appellant also desired to inspect his service book and personal file, attendance registers from the year 1983 to 1989, the FIR lodged against Mohan Singh, and the final report filed in the said FIR after investigation; and further stated that he was desirous of personal hearing and would supply the name of his defence nominee with the final reply. The Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, in response to the aforesaid application dated 09.04.1990, informed the appellant under the communication dated 20.04.1990 (Annex. 4) that he could inspect the relevant documents during the office hours. The appellant, however, sent another communication dated 25.04.1990 (Annex. 5) that he was not allowed to inspect the documents; and that inspection of the service book, the personal file, and the attendance registers was entirely necessary, without which, he was unable to file the reply. The appellant also submitted that though the Inquiry Officer had been appointed but he had not been allowed inspection; and until inspection, the inquiry proceedings be kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the appellant sent another communication dated 25.05.1990 (Annex. 6) that the person proposed to be appointed as defence nominee was out of town and his name shall be sent after obtaining consent. By way of yet another communication dated 15.07.1990 (Annex. 7) the appellant stated that neither inspection of the record had been allowed nor defence nominee had been permitted and in absence thereof, he was unable to file the reply. The appellant further stated under his communication dated 20.09.1990 (Annex. 8) that the record was not allowed to be inspected and defence nominee was also not permitted and the inquiry had been started ex parte but then, he was finding it difficult to appoint any person as defence nominee due to the pressure of Mohan Singh and Manmohan Singh and, therefore, the inquiry be kept in abeyance.