CHANDRESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Chandresh Kumar challenging the letter dated 04.04.2006 by which he was communicated the adverse remarks and subsequent letter dated 26.09.2006, by which the representation submitted by him against the letter dated 04.04.2006, conveying him adverse remarks in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report, was rejected. Petitioner was at the relevant point of time working on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police at Jaitaran in September, 2004. The reviewing officer i.e. the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, vide communication dated 04.04.2006 conveyed to him following adverse remarks:--

(2.) Background in which aforesaid adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner are that the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, District Pali, on 05.04.2005 (Annexure-3) stating therein that law and order situation in Jaitaran Circle of District Pali (of which the petitioner was Circle Officer) was quite disturbing. One woman was murdered in broad day light in village Agewa and accused could not be traced for quite some time. The members of the Gurjar community had agitated over this issue. Despite instructions, the Circular Officer has not taken steps to ensure effective investigation and even did not interrogate the known criminals of the area. It was directed that explanation of concerning Circle Officer and S.H.O., should be called for and a special team should be constituted to solve the case.

(3.) Another incident that was mentioned therein was that of village Sumel, Police Station Sendra, where one woman named Basanti was proposed to become 'sati', (a forbidden ritual where a woman burns herself alive on pyre of her deceased husband). This was taken place on 20.03.2005. Even though information was received at the Police Station on 19.03.2005 at 2.30-3.00 pm about the said incident of proposed 'sati'. It was a lapse on the part of the concerning police official as to why the information with regard thereto did not reach the police earlier, despite the fact that large crowd of 25 to 30 thousand people assembled there and as per the information subsequently received, the announcement with regard to this incident was made by loud speaker fitting in jeep in adjoining areas and printed pamphlets were also distributed. The Superintendent of Police was asked to call for explanation of concerned Circle Officer i.e. the petitioner, the S.H.O., and the Incharge of the Police outpost as to why advance information was not collected thereabout. It was further stated that this was a serious case of dereliction of duty and therefore explanation of the officers should be sent.