UMED SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Umed Singh, the petitioner, in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was employed as a Constable in the Railway Police Force of the Government of Rajasthan, and on July 6/7, 1967, he was posted at Ajmer. On 7th July, 1967, Head Constable Dhan Singh made a report before the Reserve Inspector, G.R.P., Lines, Ajmer wherein it was stated that in the night of July 6 and 7, 1967, constable Umed Singh (petitioner) and Megh Singh had brought a man and his wife in quarter No. I 1 in which Constable Bhanwer Singh resided and that the man was taken to barracks, but the woman was kept in quarter and these constables viz Umed Singh, Megh Singh and Bhanwar Singh had committed immoral act with the woman in the night. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a preliminary enquiry was made and the Superintendent of Police (Rly), Ajmer passed an order dated July 20, 1967, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a memorandum dated July 20, 1967 with regard to the initiation of a disciplinary enquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The aforesaid memorandum was accompanied by a charge-sheet containing two charges and a statement of allegations in support of the said charges. The first charge was to the effect that on the night of July 6/7, 1967, the petitioner in collusion with constable Megh Singh and Bhanwar Singh had put up one Dalpat Singh Rajput resident of Bhanwata (Beawar) and his wife in the quarter of constable Bhanwar Singh without obtaining the permission of the Reserve Inspector, G.R.P. Lines, Ajmer. The second charge was to the effect that in the night of July 6/7 1967, the petitioner brought deceitfully the wife of Dalpat Singh in the quarter of constable Bhanwar Singh and after making her stay in the said quarter with an evil intention, the petitioner in collusion with constable Megh Singh behaved with her in an indecent and immoral manner. The petitioner submitted a reply refusing the said charges. It appears that similar charges wire served on constable Megh Singh. One Shri Abhay Singh, Home Inspector, G.R.P. Lines, Ajmer was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the aforesaid charges against the petitioner and constable Megh Singh. After recording the evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 22nd December, 1967, wherein he found that the petitioner guilty of both the charges. Constable Megh Singh was exonerated of charge No. 2, and as regards charge No. 1 it was held that it was partially established against, him to the extent that he was also responsible for bringing Dalpat Singh and his wife to the G.R.P. Lines. After taking into consideration the said report, the Disciplinary Authority, the Superintendent of Police, by his order dated Feb. 4, 1968, informed the petitioner that after taking into consideration the report of the Enquiry Officer he had arrived at the conclusion that charges No. 1 and 2 were established against him and that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. By the letter aforesaid, the petitioner was required to show cause against the imposition of the proposed punishment. The petitioner submitted his reply dated March 11, 1968, to the aforesaid show cause notice and after taking into consideration the said reply of the petitioner the Superintendent of Police (Railways) passed the order dated March 14, 1968, whereby the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner. In so far as constable Megh Singh was concerned, the punishment of reduction in pay by Rs. 5.00 per month for four years was imposed. The petitioner submitted an appeal against the aforesaid order of dismissal and the said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Inspector General of Police by his order dated Oct. 8, 1968. The petitioner thereupon submitted a second appeal before the State Government which was also dismissed, by the order of the State Government dated Sept. 22, 1969 after obtaining the advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner then submitted a review petition which was also dismissed by the Governor by order dated April 25, 1973. Thereafter the petitioner filed this writ petition wherein he has challenged all the aforesaid orders dated March 14, 1968, Oct. 8,1968, Sept. 22, 1969 and April 25, 1973.

(2.) Shri A.K. Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on the petitioner for the reason that he was found guilty of the second charge and that the aforesaid finding with regard to the guilt of the petitioner in respect of the second charge is not sustainable inasmuch as it is based on no evidence. In this context, Shri Bhandari has urged that the woman with whom the petitioner is alleged to have behaved in an indecent and immoral manner, viz, the wife of Dalpat Singh was not examined before the Enquiry Officer during the course of the Enquiry and that the statement of other witnesses produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the statement made by the wife of Dalpat Singh at the railway platform were merely hearsay and were inadmissible in evidence. Shri Bhandari has submitted that if the aforesaid statements are excluded from consideration there is no evidence in support of the finding with regard to the guilt of the petitioner for the second charge In support of his submission that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in departmental inquiries relating to the charge of misconduct. Shri Bhandari has placed reliance on the decisions of the supreme Court in Jagannath Prasad Sharma Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1961 SC 1245) . S. Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Punjab (AIR 1964 SC 72).

(3.) The learned Asstt. Government Advocate, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no absolute bar to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in departmental enquiries inasmuch as such enquiries are not governed by the strict and technical rules of the Law of Evidence. In support of his aforesaid submission, the learned Asstt. Government Advocate, has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Murlidhar Joce (AIR 1963 SC 404) , State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Shri Rama Rao(AIR 1963 SC 1723) , Shri K.L. Sinde Vs. The State of Mysore (AIR 1975 SC 1723) and The State of Haryana Vs. Ratan Singh (AIR 1977 SC 1512) .