OM PRAKASH JOSHI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dt. 17.4.2008 passed by Director General of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur, whereby the Director General of Police, while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer has indicted the petitioner for the misconducts and inflicted on him the penalty of demotion far three years. The undisputed facts are that while working as Chief Inspector at Police Station, Naya Sahar (Bikaner) in the year 2004 -05, a complaint was received against the petitioner that he is demanding bribe from the complainant Subhash Swami for extending him some favour in a criminal case. On receiving the complaint, the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bikaner organized a trap and requisite arrangements were made for the same on 14.5.2005. However, according to the version of the petitioner, the trap proceedings resulted abortive and nothing was found against him. For the same incident, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary enquiry and a memorandum and charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') was served on 19.4.2006 attributing misconducts. The complete text of charge sheet & statement of allegations is reproduced as under:

(2.) THE Charge sheet was replied by the petitioner and thereafter a regular enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer, Additional Superintendent of Police, Bikaner on conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his report on 29.11.2007 and exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. The disciplinary authority i.e. Director General of Police, on receipt of enquiry report disagreed with the findings and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner showing the reasons for disagreement on 4.1.2008. Responding to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted, his reply/explanation on 16.1.2008, thereafter the petitioner was asked by the Additional Director General of Police (Vigilance) to appear in his office for voice test on 26.3.2008. The said communication of the Addl. Director General of Police, Vigilance was replied by the petitioner on 30.3.2008. The fact remains that no voice test was conducted and abruptly the petitioner was visited with the punishment order dt. 17.4.2008, passed by the Director General of Police, reverting him from the post of Circle Inspector to Sub Inspector for a period of three years.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, reply to the writ petition was submitted and averments contained in the writ petition were denied in toto. The respondents in their return have submitted that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer has recorded cogent and sufficient reasons and thereafter has issued the order of punishment while is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.