AMRA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 7. 9. 2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 1. 10. 1999 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur by which the charges levelled against the petitioner in an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCA Rules") were found proved and the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from the post of Sub Inspector for a period of three years, the order dated 25. 3. 2000 (Annex. 6) passed by the respondent No. 2 the Director General of Police, Jaipur by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order Annex. 4 dated 1. 10. 1999 was dismissed and the order dated 3. 4. 2001 (Annex. 8) by which the review petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :- THE petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 18. 3. 1971 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 13. 6. 1975 and, thereafter, he was further promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on 24. 2. 1983 and, thereafter, he was selected to the post of Sub Inspector on 29. 4. 1993. It may be stated here that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired vide order dated 28. 11. 2000 before filing of the present writ petition. THE further case of the petitioner is that he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules on 22. 12. 1995, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 1 and the sum and substance of the charges levelled against the petitioner is as follows :- (i) That on 20. 8. 1994 in connection with case No. 85/94 under Sections 457, 380 IPC, he took the accused Teja Ram for interrogation to the police station, but his presence was not recorded in the record. (ii) That on 21. 8. 94, presence of accused Teja Ram was not recorded in Rojnamcha and wrongly recorded his presence at item No. 2. (iii) That the fact of interrogation from accused Teja Ram was not recorded in Rojnamcha and he also did not record the fact of departure alongwith the accused Teja Ram for search and enquiry. (iv) That on 21. 8. 1995 accused Teja Ram was handed over to Mahendra Singh, Head Constable and having proved guilt of accused Teja Ram, he was not arrested and he was wrongly detained in custody, and (v) That he did not maintain control over the staff and, therefore, during the course of enquiry, in the way, accused Teja Ram committed suicide, upon which a case No. 86/94 was registered against him and challan was filed under Sections 342, 330 IPC. " THE further case of the petitioner is that the crux of the charge-sheet was that accused Teja Ram was interrogated and while he was being taken for recovery, he committed suicide. A reply to the above charges was filed by the petitioner and in the reply, the petitioner made it clear that at the time of going for recovery, he was not with the police party and, therefore, he cannot be held liable for any type of misconduct because admittedly accused Teja Ram committed suicide and he was an accused for the offence u/sec. 380, 457 IPC and he admitted his guilt during the course of interrogation. THE further case of the petitioner is that for the same charges, an FIR was lodged against him and a challan for the offence under Secs. 342 & 330 IPC was filed against him. However, after trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the said charges for the offence under Section 342 and 330 IPC vide judgment and order dated 2. 6. 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Balesar, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 3. THE further case of the petitioner is that though he was acquitted of all the criminal charges, yet the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur) imposed the penalty of reversion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from the post of Sub Inspector for three years against the petitioner through order dated 1. 10. 1999, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 4. Aggrieved from the said order dated 1. 10. 1999 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General of Police, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police and a copy of the memo of appeal is marked as Annex. 5. THE Appellate Authority (respondent No. 2 Director General of Police) through order dated 25. 3. 2000 (Annex. 6) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order Annex. 4 dated 1. 10. 1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General of Police ). Aggrieved from the said order of the Appellate Authority dt. 25. 3. 2000 (Annex. 6) the petitioner preferred a review petition before his Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, but the same was also dismissed through order dated 3. 4. 2001. (Annex. 8 ). In this writ petition, the order dated 1. 10. 1999 (Annex. 4) by which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Sub Inspector to the post of Asstt. Sub Inspector, order dated 25. 3. 2000 (Annex. 6) by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 3. 4. 2001 (Annex. 8) by which the review petition of the petitioner was dismissed, have been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main grounds are as follows :- (i) That when the criminal charges levelled against the petitioner were not found proved and he was acquitted of the criminal charges vide judgment and order dated 2. 6. 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Balesar, the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against him was without jurisdiction and illegal and therefore, whole disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner should have been dropped. (ii) That since the criminal charges have not been found proved against the petitioner, therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned orders Annex. 4, Annex. 6 and Annex. 8 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside. Apart from this, there was not an iota of evidence against the petitioner to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner and thus, the findings of guilt recorded against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority are erroneous one and cannot be sustained. (iii) That furthermore, the penalty imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate, irrational and excess, looking to the charges found proved against him. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it has been submitted by the respondents that the petitioner stood compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 28. 11. 2000 and that order was passed after taking into consideration his entire service record and in public interest and it has no relation with the order dated 1. 10. 1999 (Annex. 4) by which the penalty of reversion from the post of Sub Inspector to the post of Asstt. Sub Inspector was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General of Police) after finding the charges levelled against the petitioner proved. THE charges were rightly found proved against the petitioner as the petitioner has committed misconduct, negligence and dereliction of duties in detaining the accused Teja Ram in illegal custody and not only this, he concealed material facts etc. and because of his negligence, the accused Teja Ram committed suicide and thus, disciplinary proceedings were rightly initiated against him and he was rightly punished by the Disciplinary Authority. So far as the acquittal of the petitioner of criminal charges is concerned, it was submitted by the respondents that it is a separate and distinct matter and it is distinguishable from the domestic enquiry as the standard of proof and manner of leading evidence is entirely different and thus, the acquittal of the petitioner of criminal charges would not affect the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Apart from this, it was further submitted by the respondents that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, the scope of judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 in respect of scrutinizing the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority is very limited. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, legal aspect with respect to scope of judicial review and scope of interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority may be seen.