RAMESH CHANDRA SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner Ramesh Chandra Soni challenging the order of his removal dated 13.01.1999 and the order dated 25.05.1999 thereby dismissing his appeal thereagainst.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Constable with the respondent Police Department on 02.05.1975. he was confirmed on the said post on 02.05.1977. A charge-sheet was issued to him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on allegation of willful absence for 179 days on different periods from February, 1994 to August, 1994. Petitioner replied to the charge-sheet contending that it was not a case of willful absence. One Additional Superintendent of Police Shri G.S. Srivastava, was appointed as inquiry officer. He, in his report, found the charges against the petitioner proved. The disciplinary authority i.e. the respondent no.3 proposed to award a major penalty vide notice dated 05.02.1998. The petitioner submitted a representation against the enquiry report and proposed penalty. The disciplinary authority on being satisfied that the disciplinary enquiry has not been conducted as per the provisions contained in CCA Rules inasmuch as neither any witness has been examined nor any documents exhibited, did not accept the enquiry report and directed conducting de-novo enquiry.

(3.) Earlier this writ petition was decided by a Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2002, whereunder the penalty of removal from service of the petitioner was held to be shockingly disproportionate, and substituted the same by the penalty of withholding of six grade increments with future effect. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with 50% of the back salary by calculating the same as if he was throughout in service during the interregnum and was held entitled to all benefits which he would have earned had he been in service. In appeal being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.101/2003 preferred by the respondents-department, the Division Bench has remanded the matter again to the Single Bench by holding that settled legal position has not been considered by the learned Single Judge in correct perspective, while making interference with the quantum of punishment, with direction that matter needs reconsideration by the learned Single Judge on the quantum of punishment in the light of judgment referred to above.