STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KHALIL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.04.2010 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by petitioner-respondent was allowed with the following directions:-

(2.) The petitioner-respondent had filed a writ petition. Case of the petitioner-respondent was that he was initially appointed as Constable and continued on the post of Driver-Constable. During the said period, the petitioner-respondent had applied for the acquired leave for thirty days and the Superintendent of Police, Dholpur vide order No. 45/1992 dated 27.01.1992 accepted the application for leave and granted the said leave to the petitioner. The petitioner before proceeding on leave, sought the permission from Reserve Inspector, Dholpur (being immediate Officer). Then the Reserve Inspector refused the same but the petitioner kept mum, but being in the need of leave, he again made a request on 01.02.1992 to the Reserve Inspector. Then he orally permitted the petitioner to proceed on sanctioned leave. When the petitioner-respondent was proceeding on leave, he got injured and as a matter of result, he sustained grievous injuries on his nose and remained sick for weeks together. He was having severe pain in his stomach for long period. The Doctors of the General Hospital, Dholpur had advised him bed-rest for a period till complete recovery of health and because of this, the petitioner-respondent could not report for the duty upto 02.03.1992 (the date on which the 30 days leave comes to end). He sent an application through UPC to the Reserve Inspector, Dholpur and the Superintendent of Police, Dholpur for extension of his leave in such circumstances. When the petitioner-respondent recovered and went to report for duty and submitted his joining report, the Superintendent of Police sent a notice to the petitioner-respondent on 23.02.1993 and asked him to join his duties within seven days from the receipt of notice. The said notice was received by the petitioner-respondent on 11.03.1993. The petitioner-respondent was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.05.1993 along with the memorandum on 02.06.1993 with particulars of the charges levelled against him and detailed list of the witnesses giving him 15 days time for submitting his reply or explanation regarding the same. The petitioner-respondent submitted an application dated 22.03.1994 to the Reserve Inspector, Police Line Dholpur and explained therein his inability to appear and attend the inquiry scheduled for 22.03.1994 on account of his illness and requesting him for fixing a new date enabling him to appear before the Inquiry Officer for justifying his case. During the period of treatment of the petitioner-respondent, he got a letter dated 02.03.1994 of the Reserve Inspector regarding the Departmental Inquiry and the petitioner-respondent was informed to attend proceedings before the Reserve Inspector on 07.03.1994 for producing the evidence/reply against the charges levelled against him. The petitioner-respondent attended the office on 07.03.1994 while his health did not permit him to leave the bed. The petitioner-respondent requested the Reserve Inspector to supply him copies of the report but the same were not supplied to him. Thereafter, he again submitted another application on 15.03.1994 before the Reserve Inspector demanding duplicate copies of the documents relating to the Departmental Inquiry and copies of the charges levelled against him, but no such copies were supplied to him. No preliminary inquiry was conducted prior to initiation of Departmental Inquiry against him. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of seven witnesses in his absence. The Departmental Inquiry was not conducted properly. The petitioner-respondent was not informed about it nor the Inquiry Officer had given any notice to the petitioner-respondent for opportunity of hearing. The inquiry was ex-parte, which is not permissible in the eye of law. Inquiry Report was sent by the Reserve Inspector to the Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police issued a show-cause notice under Rule 16(10)(1) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereafter referred as 'the Rules of 1958') to the petitioner-respondent and the petitioner-respondent submitted reply to the show-cause notice and explained his innocence in this regard. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 31.08.1994 by which the punishment of termination of services was awarded and arrears of salary and allowances were also forfeited. Aggrieved by this order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner-respondent challenged the same by way of filing an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, but appeal was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.02.1995. The petitioner-respondent being aggrieved, preferred a Review Petition before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan as contemplated under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958, but that Review Petition was not decided in spite of lapse of considerable period of time. The Departmental Inquiry was conducted in violation of Rules of natural justice. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner-respondent to participate in the inquiry. Proper hearing was not allowed. Inquiry Officer was prejudiced against the petitioner-respondent and his appointment as Inquiry Officer was vitiated on this ground alone. Copy of the Inquiry Report was not supplied to the petitioner-respondent before the passing of impugned orders dated 31.08.1994 and 25.02.1995. On these grounds, the petitioner-respondent filed the writ petition with following prayers:-

(3.) After hearing both the parties, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and impugned orders dated 31.08.1994 and 25.02.1995 were set aside. The petitioner-respondent was held entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity. The petitioner-respondent was also held entitled to 50% of the consequential monetary benefits.