AMI CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13/9/2004 (Ann. 3) dismissing the petitioner from service in a disciplinary proceeding, the order dated 31/12/2004 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal was dismissed, the order dated 16/6/2008 (Ann. 6) whereby, the review petition filed by him challenging the appellate order dismissing appeal was dismissed and the order dated 31/1/2012 (Ann. 8) by which the second review petition was dismissed. Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner while working on the post of Constable, was placed under suspension vide order dated 19/8/2002 on account of an incident, which took place on that day while he was assigned the patrolling duty with arms & ammunitions along with another Constable Gokul Chand during night from Police Station Kotwali Dholpur from 7-11 p.m. A charge-sheet was served upon both of them on 19/12/2002 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the "CCA Rules") alleging that they did not return back to the office and remained absent from duties without informing their authorities. The department lodged a first information report against them for offence u/Ss. 379, 409 IPC read with Section 7(g) of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Act, 1950 on 21/9/2002. Three charges against both the delinquents were framed, which were exactly identically worded except the difference of their names. Both the delinquents filed reply to the charge-sheet and denied the charges. In the reply, it was contended by the petitioner that he had stomach problem and had dysentery and went to the doctor for his treatment and therefore could not immediately report back. There was thus no case for offence u/s. 379 IPC. Defence of the petitioner was that he handed over the arms & ammunitions issued in his name to the officer of the department because they were apprehending their arrest due to lodgment of FIR against them and were advised to seek anticipatory bail from the Court. Their explanation was not accepted and the enquiry officer was appointed.

(2.) A common enquiry was held against both the delinquents. The enquiry officer in his report found all the charges proved against both of them with the same finding of guilt. The disciplinary authority though by separate orders passed on the same day i.e., 13/9/2004 (Ann. 3), dismissed both the petitioner-Ami Chand and co-delinquent-Gokul Chand from service. Petitioner as well as the co-delinquent filed appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules. However, the appellate authority dismissed both the appeals by identically worded separate orders on 31/12/2004. Petitioner as well as the co-delinquent filed review petition before His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules against the said orders. The Reviewing Authority dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 16/6/2008 (Ann. 6) but partly allowed the review petition filed by co-delinquent Gokul Chand vide order dated 22/9/2006 (Ann. 5) on the ground of penalty being disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charge and directed that the intervening period would be treated as "dies non" and converted the penalty of dismissal of service into one stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

(3.) Petitioner earlier approached before this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9976/2008 (Amichand v. State & Ors.). This Court partly allowed the writ petition thereby, setting aside the reviewing order dated 16/6/2008 however remanded the matter back to the Reviewing Authority to re-consider the review petition filed by the petitioner and the order passed in the case of co-delinquent Gokul Chand. The Reviewing Authority vide order dated 31/1/2012 (Ann. 8) again dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner on the premise that there is no provision for reconsideration of the order of reduction of penalty passed on the review petition filed under Rule 23 and thus the order passed by the predecessor Governor of the State in the case of co-delinquent Gokul Chand cannot be reviewed. Therefore, not agreeing with the order passed in the case of co-delinquent, Reviewing Authority has dismissed the petition for review filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.