JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had joined the State of Rajasthan service as a Constable in 1959. He was promoted as Head Constable and then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1973.

(2.) THE petitioner was placed under suspension on 10. 3. 1987 under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules in contemplation of the disciplinary enquiry. He was issued a charge-sheet on 23. 6. 1987 under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules vide Annexure-2. THE allegations as levelled against the petitioner were denied. Initially one Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer, but later on Addl. S. P. was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 11. 3. 1988. THE enquiry officer had given a finding that none of the allegations levelled against the petitioner were proved, rather the enquiry officer had commented against the conduct of the U. P. Police from Bundelshahar who had come to take one accused Shyalu Bewaria @ Netrapal Singh who was in the custody of Kumher Police in connection with dacoity case. Show cause notice was issued on 8. 8. 1989 along with the report of enquiry as Annexure-4. Even though the enquiry report was attached with the show cause notice, but it was the grievance of the petitioner that complete Enquiry report had not been given as as many as 5-6 pages were missing and for that purpose he has been making representation to the respondent vide Annexures 6 and 7. However, show cause notice was replied and was handed over in the office of S. P. , Alwar on 23. 9. 1989 for onward transmission to respondent No. 3. As he was to answer the show cause notice, he had also applied for extension of time which was to expire on 27. 9. 1989 as per petitioner. Vide order dated 29. 9. 1989, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement with further penalty of forfeiture of the remaining salary during the period of suspension vide Annexure-9. THE petitioner submitted the appeal vide Annexure-10 which appeal was also dismissed on 26. 4. 1990.

(3.) IT was further held that the principles of natural justice will have, therefore, to be read into Regulation 7 (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiring authority on any article of charge then before it records its findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its finding will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer.