UGMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is listed for confirmation of the interim order, however, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners are facing departmental inquiry, which had been initiated after 11 years of the alleged incident and in light of the fact that the petitioners have been acquitted by the competent trial Court, the matter be decided at this stage itself, lest the petitioners' rights would be prejudicely affected and the petitioner No.1, who has since retired, will be denied retiral dues in the guise of pending inquiry.

(2.) With the consent of rival parties, the matter is being finally decided.

(3.) Mr. Punia, learned Senior Counsel apprising the Court about the backdrop facts, stated that the petitioner No.1 was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police whereas the petitioner No.2 was a constable at the relevant time, when the case under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against them.