HARISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN second inning of his legal battle the petitioner has challenged impugned orders dt. 13. 1. 94 (Annex. 4) dismissing him from service for the misconduct and which has been affirmed in his appeal by order dt. 29. 7. 94 (Annex. 6 ).

(2.) FACTS relevant for disposal of this petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 1. 12. 1973 by the Superintendent of Police (S. P.) Jaipur and later on was transferred to the office of S. P. Sikar in January, 1987. During his posting as Constable in Treasury Guard, Sikar on 12. 5. 91; as per charge sheet dated 21. 8. 91, the petitioner is alleged to have left place of his duty (Treasury Guard) alongwith a register but in a drunkard condition had proceeded to the office of S. P. Sikar alongwith his rifle, inasmuch as he ill-behaved with officials deployed in election duty in his drunkard state on the way and thereafter entered in the chambers of the S. P. The charge-sheet is said to have been served on 24. 8. 91 and whereafter the Addl. S. P. was appointed as Enquiry Officer who during inquiry is said to have informed the delinquent (petitioner) as to the inquiry dates on various occasions through special messangers - as detailed out in inquiry report dated 31. 3. 92 (Annex. 1) but he remained allegedly absent despite service of notice on 2. 3. 92 for date 4. 3. 92, hence proceedings were ordered as ex-parte. During inquiry the department produced eleven witnesses and got seven documents exhibited. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 31. 3. 92 holding misconduct of the petitioner for the allegations under both the charges as proved and thereby held him guilty of two charges. On the basis of inquiry report, the S. P. Sikar (disciplinary authority) punished the petitioner for the guilt of misconduct directing his dismissal from service by order dated 30. 4. 92 against which appeal filed by him too was rejected by the appellate authority under order dated 26. 12. 92 holding his appeal as time barred. Against both the orders of punishment and the appellate authority, the petitioner had also approached this Court by way of his CWP No. 1796/93 wherein though several grounds were raised but this Court considered it necessary to refer only the plea that copy of enquiry report was not furnished before punishing him but with punishment order, thereby he had no opportunity to make his submissions against conclusions drawn by the inquiring authority, which has resulted in depriving him of reasonable opportunity of being heard as contemplated by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution so also Rule 16 of 1958 Rules. This Court after having considered rival contentions and various decisions cited at the Bar, in its judgment dated 29. 7. 1993 (Ann. 2) allowed the petitioner's writ petition in the following terms: " Since there has been a clear non-compliance of the Rules and the principle of natural justice, order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police is liable to be quashed. There is no escape from the conclusion that by not giving a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner as well as an opportunity to make submissions with reference to adverse findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the Superintendent of Police has breached Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as well as Rule 16 of the Rules, of 1958 and principles of natural justice. Once it is held that the original order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police is vitiated, the appellate order passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur is also liable to be declared as void. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 30. 4. 92 (Ann. 1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sikar and dated 26. 12. 92 (Ann. 4) passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur are declared illegal and are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service. The Superintendent of Police shall be free to make fresh order after calling upon the petitioner to make representation against the findings of the inquiry officer. Parties are left to bear their own costs. "

(3.) NEXT plunk of attack as to the validity of the impugned orders of punishment, as vociferously contended by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders require judicial review on manifold reasons inter alia that not only the inquiry but also its report has been in utter disregard of principles of natural justice and in violation of the CCA Rules, because the inquiry itself was conducted ex parte and no intimation of the date of inquiry proceedings was ever communicated nor any notice thereof was served, which has resulted in depriving of the petitioner of his valuable right of cross-examination to the departmental witnesses.