DARSHNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, who is wife of Ratan Singh, who was Constable in the Police Department and died on 12. 1. 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "late Constable") on 16. 7. 2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 25. 1. 2000 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand by which he after holding the late Constable guilty of some of the charges in a Departmental Enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCA Rules") imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the late Constable, but for the period from 6. 3. 1999 to 12. 3. 1999 leave without pay was sanctioned and further, the appellate order dated 6. 6. 2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur by which the appeal of the late Constable against the order Annex. 2 dated 25. 1. 2000 was dismissed, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward in this writ petition is as follows :- THE husband off the petitioner, namely, Ratan Singh was Constable in the Police Department and he died on 12. 1. 2002. When late Constable was posted at Police Line, Rajsamand, a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was issued to him by the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand through memorandum dated 12. 7. 1999, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 1. A perusal of the charge-sheet Annex. 1 reveals that as many as six charges were levelled against the late Constable. A reply to the said charges was submitted by the late Constable in which he denied all the allegations levelled against him. After conclusion of the enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules against the late Constable the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand held the late Constable guilty of some of the charges levelled against him and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service against him, but sanctioned his leave without pay for the period from 6. 3. 1999 to 12. 3. 1999 through impugned order Annex. 2 dated 25. 1. 2000. THE sum and substance of the charges levelled against the late Constable and the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand) through impugned order Annex. 2 on each charge are as follows:- S. No. Charges Findings of Disciplinary Authority 1. That on 6. 3. 99 at about 6. 45 PM, late Constable left the police line without any permission and after 6 days, on 12. 3. 1999 he assumed the duties. Proved in toto 2. That no explanation for wilful absence from duties was made by late Constable before the authorities concerned. Proved in toto 3. That in the night of 6. 3. 99 at about 11. 00 PM, after consuming liquor at village Khatana Ki Bhagal, late Constable entered the house of one Smt. Mohini widow of late Bhanwar Lal Gurjar with criminal intention and at that time, it was alleged that he fell down on the stairs and received some injuries on his person. Proved in toto 4. That when late Constable had already entered the house of Smt. Mohini, he was asked not to go further by Smt. Mohini and thereupon, he asked her who is she to ask and thereafter, he tried to outrage her modesty and assaulted her by giving 2-3 slaps. THE fact that late Constable entered the house of Smt. Mohini and misbehaved with her in a drunken condition is proved, but the charge of outraging her modesty was not found proved. Thus, that charge No. 4 was found partially proved against the late Constable. 5. That when Ramesh and Deva tried their best to put him out from the house of Smt. Mohini, late Constable beat Ramesh, as a result of which, Ramesh fell down and received injuries and late Constable also best Deva. Proved in toto 6. That thereafter, some villagers came there and upon their intervention, late Constable came out from the house of Smt. Mohini and thus, by his criminal act, reputation of the Police Department stood tarnished. Proved in toto Against the said order of dismissal, from service dated 25. 1. 2000 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand, the late Constable preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur and the appellate authority (respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur) through order dated 6. 6. 2001 (Annex. 3) dismissed the appeal of the late Constable. THE further case of the petitioner is that in respect of the same charges i. e. outraging the modesty of Smt. Mohini, a criminal case was also registered against the late Constable being No. 63/99 (FIR No. 169/99 Police Station Rajnagar) and after trial, the late Constable was acquitted of the charges for the offence under Sections 457, 323 and 354 IPC through judgment and order dated 20. 11. 2001 (Annex. 4) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. Aggrieved from the said order of dismissal from service dated 25. 1. 2000 (Annex. 2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand) and appellate order dated 6. 6. 2001 (Annex. 3) passed by the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3 Dy. Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur), the petitioner, wife of late Constable, has preferred this writ petition. In this petitioner, the following submissions have been made :- (i) That there was no occasion for the Department to initiate departmental enquiry against late Constable when in respect of the same charges, a criminal case was pending against him and when he has been acquitted in criminal case, therefore, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are baseless and should be set aside. (ii) That so far as the charges No. 1 and 2 pertaining to absence from duties from 6. 3. 1999 to 12. 3. 1999 are concerned, as per Rule 86 (3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short "rsr"), no disciplinary action could be taken unless the Government employee remains absent from duty for a period exceeding one month and since in the present case, the late Constable remained absent from duty for only six days, therefore, the charges No. 1 and 2 cannot stand and thus, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority on these charges No. 1 and 2 are wholly erroneous and perverse one and should be set aside. (iii) That apart from thus, since the main charge of outraging the modesty of Smt. Mohini was not found proved against the late Constable even in the Departmental proceedings, therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed against the late Constable 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 late Constable was rightly punished by the Disciplinary Authority and his appeal was also rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. So far as the acquittal of the late Constable of criminal charges is concerned, it was submitted by the respondents that it is a separate and district 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 late Constable of criminal charges would not affect the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the late Constable. 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, it may be stated here that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not function as a Court of appeal over the findings of disciplinary authority. But, where the finding is utterly perverse the High Court can interfere with the same.