SUMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 23. 9. 2002 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated. 24. 1. 2000 (Annex. 9) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner (respondent No. 4) by which apart from charge No. 1, rest charges Nos. 2 and 3 were also found proved against the petitioner and penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect were imposed upon the petitioner and the order dated 20. 10. 2000 (Annex. 11) passed by the respondent No. 3 Dt. Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and further, the order dated 5. 12. 2001 (Annex. 13) passed by the respondent No. 3 Dy. Secretary, Department of Home (Appeal), Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which the review petition of the petitioner was rejected, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) IT may be stated here that when the petitioner was working as Driver in capacity as Constable, a complaint (Annex. 2) was made against him by one Smt. Sujata on 20. 7. 1998 stating inter- alia that on that day i. e. 20. 7. 1998 at about 9. 00 PM, the petitioner tried to outrage her modesty and snatched her chain and on the basis of that complaint, a criminal case for the offence under sections 341, 324, 354, 382 IPC was got registered against the petitioner. During investigation of that case, an affidavit (Annex. 3) dated 23. 7. 1998 was submitted by the complainant Smt. Sujata stating that the person, who tested her was not the petitioner and since during trial, the complainant Smt. Sujata and her husband Kanwarjeet Singh became hostile, therefore, the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges framed against him for the offence under Sections 354, 382, 324 IPC through judgment and order dated 8. 10. 1998 (Annex. 4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bikaner.

(3.) A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it was submitted by them that no doubt the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case, but in departmental enquiry, charges could be found proved against him. Hence, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Disciplinary Authority in holding the petitioner guilty of the charges Nos. 2 and 3. Thus, no interference is called for and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.