RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition of the year 1997 has come up today for final hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner had informed that during the pendency of the writ petition in due course, the petitioner has taken away the brief from him. However, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner even in the second round. Therefore, this Court had directed Mr. M.K. Kaushik, Advocate to assist the Court in the case which had been initially filed by him and got admitted on 26.5.2005.

(2.) THE writ petition had come to be filed before this Court as the petitioner was aggrieved of the orders passed by the respondents on 28.1.91 (Annex. 7) and 28.10.91 (Annex. 8). THErefore, it has been prayed by the petitioner that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to award all consequential benefits.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has made an endeavour too support the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. He has submitted that the disciplinary authority had rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of charge No. 5, which stands proved in the departmental enquiry. He has further submitted that from the evidence on record, it is apparent that the delinquent was involved in the case whereby Sumita Chakrawati was made to travel in the train, thereafter her bag was taken away etc. etc. and that the petitioner had committed the alleged offence. Therefore, he is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the disciplinary authority had considered in detail the evidence on record in respect of charge No. 5, and furnished reasons for disagreement with the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer. Thus, the counsel for the respondents has submitted that no case for interference in the orders impugned is made out and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.