TRILOK CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel of the parties, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was justified in not exercising extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, who was investigating officer of an offence, recovered a gun vide recovery memo. He also recorded that gun was already washed before the recovery. The petitioner mentioned this fact in the recovery memo. Despite this, instead of sending the gun to FSL, he sent it to District Armor for examination. It is submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted that he has not sent the gun to FSL Jaipur. Therefore he was negligent in discharging the duties and it is a misconduct also.

(2.) In our opinion, it is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid admissions, detailed reason was not required in the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Moreover the petitioner did file an appeal against the order raising the same objection. The Appellate Authority examined the grievance in detail and passed a reasoned order pointing out from the contents of the explanation furnished by the petitioner. Said reasons are quite eloquent. In the circumstances the imposition of minor penalty of stoppage of three grade annual increments without cumulative effect does not require interference by this Court.

(3.) It may also be noticed that how an Inquiry Officer could note and record that the weapon has been washed and kept. The explanation does not even disclose the source from which he came to know about the fact. He does not claim to be an expert. He was simply receiving the weapon on information which did not reveal this fact. It leaves number of doubts about officer's bona fide unanswered.