ASGAR ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, on 7.6.2002 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Annexure-10 (order dated 24.4.2001) by which review petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by his Excellency the Governor, Annexure-8A (order dated 10.6.1998) by which representation (Annexure-8) filed by the petitioner was rejected by the DIG Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3), Annexure-6 (order dated 3.6.1981) passed by the Inspector General of Police (respondent No. 2) by which appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected and Annexure-5 (order dated 7.9.1978) passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) by which in an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958), the petitioner was removed from service be quashed and set aside.

(2.) It arises in the following circumstances : (i) That the petitioner was constable at the Police Station Desuri at the relevant time in the year 1975 and on 28.6.1975, one constable Lal Mohd. brought two men and three women having three small cloth bags with them and on search being conducted by Sub-Inspector Idan, 15 kgs. of opium was found in them. It was further stated that the Sub-Inspector Idan did not conduct any investigation and released the accused persons. In respect of that incident, a charge-sheet dated 24.9.1975 (Annexure-1) was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, containing two charges. Sum and substance of the charges are as under :(i) That the petitioner was posted as constable at the Police Station Desuri for the period from 2.3.1975 to 12.9.1975 and while he was posted as such, on 28.6.1975, Lal. Mohd. brought two men and three women having three small cloth bags with them and on the search being conducted by Sub-Inspector Idan, 15 kgs. of contraband opium was found in them and said opium was misappropriated by Sub-Inspector Idan and Sub-Inspector Idan released the accused persons and thus, the present petitioner was also a party to the conspiracy fulfilling selfish motive and leaving the duty without taking any sort of permission and providing succor in disposition of illegal opium.(ii) Not only that, thereafter the petitioner without informing the higher authorities accompanied Sub-Inspector Idan in a jeep and disbursed the contraband opium for illegal consideration and furthermore he did not inform about happenings of that incident to the higher authorities.(ii) That the petitioner submitted reply (Annexure-2) to the charge-sheet (Annexure-1) and the enquiry against the petitioner for the aforesaid two charges was conducted by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Circle Sojat and after regular enquiry, he found the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid charges and punishment of removal from service was proposed.(iii) That the petitioner was sent a notice dated 24.5.1977 (Annexure-3) along with an enquiry report whereby punishment of dismissal from service was proposed against the petitioner.(iv) Further case of the petitioner is that for the same occurrence, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and on 1.9.1978, challan for offence under Sections 409, 217 and 225 IPC was filed against the petitioner bearing FIR No. 43/76.(v) Further case of the petitioner is that through application dated 4.9.1978 (Annexure-4), he made a request to the DIG, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) that further proceedings in departmental enquiry be stayed.(vi) Further case of the petitioner is that instead of that, through impugned order dated 7.9.1978 (Annexure-5), enquiry report was accepted and the petitioner was dismissed from service by the DIG, Jodhpur Range, (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter against the order dated 7.9.1978 (Annexure-5) the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the rules of 1958 before the Inspector General of Police (respondent No. 2) and the respondent No. 2 (IGP) vide order dated 3.6.1981 (Annexure-6) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 7.9.1978 (Annexure-5).(viii) Further case of the petitioner is that since there was criminal case pending against him, therefore, he was advised not to proceed further against the appellate order dated 3.6.1981 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent No. 2 (IGP) and awaited the decision of criminal case.(ix) Further case of the petitioner is that trial of the criminal case bearing No. 196/93 came to be concluded through judgment and order dated 30.3.1996 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned ACJM (Communal Riots), Pali by which the petitioner was acquitted of the charges for offences under Sections 409 read with Section 109 IPC.(x) Further case of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.3.1996 (Annexure-7) was dismissed by this Court through judgment dated 7.8.1997.(xi) Further case of the petitioner is that since he was acquitted in criminal case, therefore, he made a representation to the respondent No. 2 (IGP), but the representation of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 10.6.1998 (Annexure-8A) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur).(xii) Further case of the petitioner is that against the order dated 10.6.1998 (Annexure-8A), he filed a representation before the Dy. Secretary, Home Department, Jaipur, but the Dy. Secretary, Home Department, Jaipur through order dated 18.12.1998 (Annexure-9) dismissed the representation of the petitioner as time barred by treating the same as review.(xiii) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter he submitted a review petition before his Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan challenging the order dated 18.12.1998 (Annexure-9), but his Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan vide order dated 24.4.2001 (Annexure 10) dismissed the review petition. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.

(3.) In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court through judgment and order dated 30.3.1996 (Annexure-7), therefore, the aforesaid four impugned orders should have been quashed and set aside and the petitioner should be ordered to be reinstated in service.