LAWS(RAJ)-1994-4-81

LAXMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 08, 1994
LAXMAN LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a Constable. A case under Sections 452, 323 and 427 I.P.C. was registered against him and he was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salumber for these offences and after trial was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 5.10.1987, against which an appeal was preferred and the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur Camp Salumber vide his judgment dated 11/8/1988 allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all the offences.

(2.) A departmental enquiry was initiated against the appellant and the disciplinary enquiry proceeded simultaneously with the criminal trial and the proceedings were never got stayed by the appellant. After receipt of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority after considering the representation of the appellant and after looking into the record imposed the punishment of removal dismissal from service vide order dated 31/1/1985 and the appeal against this order was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur vide order dated 16/10/1986. It would be pertinent to mention here at this stage that this punishment came to be awarded to the appellant much before he was convicted by the learned Magistrate on 5/10/1987 and this order in appeal too was handed down much before the conviction by the learned Magistrate. It is also pertinent to observe here at this stage that the appellant made no challenge to the order passed by the appellate authority and the order became final.

(3.) After the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the appellant, he moved an application before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur for his reinstatement in service which request was turned down vide Annex. II dated 23/2/1989. It was against this order as well as the order of dismissal Annex. 8 by the Disciplinary Authority that the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court which was heard and dismissed by the learned Single Judge and it is against this order the present appeal has come up before us.