BAGDA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash the order dated 8. 7. 1986 (Ex. 9) passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Range, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2), whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order of the District Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, dated 30. 4. 1986 (Ex. 7) inflicting penalty of removal from service & forfeiting all the remaining pay of the suspension period of the petitioner, was upheld, pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry held against him.

(2.) BRIEFLY the relevant facts are that on 20. 10. 1973 petitioner was appointed as a constable by the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) and that on the day of alleged incident he was posted as constable at the police out-post, Sojati Gate of Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur. It is alleged that on 2. 11. 1985, the petitioner, who was on patrolling duty in his beat near Bata Company, Jodhpur accompanied Bhagirath, Constable No. 1048 and went to Ghasmandi. There they illegally and forcibly detained one Tulcha Ram son of Rugha Ram Sirvi resident of Devli, and snatched away Rs. 580/ from him. Tulcha Ram complained of the said incident to the Superintendent of Police, and thereupon Circle Officer, City (East), conducted an identification test parade on the same day of the police constables of Sojati Gate, Merti Gate out posts and those of police Station, Sadar Bazar. It is alleged that complainant Tulcha Ram identified petitioner Bagda Ram & constable Bhagirath. Constable Bhagirath admitted his guilt and returned Rs. 580/- to the complainant. Shri Onkar Singh, Circle Officer, City (East), Jodhpur, thereafter submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police, whereon Crime No. 111/85 under section 392 I. P. C. was registered at Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur against both constables vide F. I. R. No. Ex. P- 4. However, after investigation a charge-sheet was filed against Bhagirath only and the petitioner was released under section 169 Cr. P. C. The petitioner was suspended and a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1958) was initiated against him. He was served with a memorandum dated 15. 11. 1985 (Ex. 1), charge-sheet (Ex. 2) and statement of allegations (Ex. 3) for the alleged mis-conduct of gross remiss, indiscipline, dereliction in discharge of his duties and carelessness. The petitioner categorically denied the charges levelled against him vide his written statement of defence dated 29. 11. 1985. The Superintendent of Police by his order dated 15. 2. 1986 ordered to hold a regular enquiry against the petitioner and Bhagirath Ram and appointed the Circle Officer (Rural), Jodhpur as an Enquiry Officer. In the said enquiry, the Department examined P. W. 1 Tulcha Ram, complainant, P. W. 2 Onkar Singh, Dy. S. P. and P. W. 3 Pooran Singh, A. S. I. In defence, the petitioner produced D. W. 1 Navin Kumar & D. W. 2 Ashok Kumar. After discussing, analysing and evaluating the evidence, the Enquiry Officer held that from the statements of prosecution witnesses it was neither proved that the petitioner had snatched Rs. 580/- from Tulcha Ram, nor established that he had kept the said amount with him. He further held that even during the enquiry, the petitioner was not identified. He further held that as per statement of P. W. 2 - Onkar Singh, Dy. S. P. at the time of alleged incident no role whatsoever was played by the petitioner. He, therefore, by his report dated 30-4. 1986 (Ex. 6) held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. However, the Superintendent of Police, after receipt of the enquiry report, without recording a statement of his finding together with brief reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, by his order dated 30. 4. 1986 (Ex. 7) held the petitioner guilty and inflicted a penalty of removal from service. He also forfeited the remaining pay and other allowance of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the D. I. G. , Police Range, Jodhpur under Rule 23 of Rules, 1958, who by his order dated 8. 7. 1986 (Ex. 9) dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that though complainant Tulcha Ram has turned hostile still then the presence of the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident was established, which proves that the petitioner left his duties and committed a mis-conduct of dereliction in discharge of his duties. He has asserted that the petitioner was also negligent in discharge of his duties in not reporting the said incident to his superiors.