MATA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Bench dated 21.02.2006, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the order of his dismissal from service was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant had been working as a Constable since 15.08.1984 and a criminal case was registered against him for committing theft in the house of one Vinod Kumar in the night of 02.08.1988. He had also proceeded on three days casual leave from 18.07.1988 but instead of reporting for duty on expiry of the said period, he remained absent from duty without leave for over 49 days and charge sheet was served upon him on 16.03.1989 under Section 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules"). He submitted reply to the charge-sheet and the Superintendent of Police who is competent authority appointed Shri Yashpal Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police as inquiry officer vide order dated 11.04.1989. However, inquiry officer who was supposed to submit the report was transferred and hence his successor in office considering the material of inquiry, submitted the inquiry report wherein charges were found proved against the appellant. The Superintendent of Police after considering the inquiry report concurred with the finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer. The appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 20.12.1989 (Annexure-9). Against which he preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of CCA Rules which was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 23.08.1990 (Annexure-11).

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant has contended that the appellant could not have been punished for the charge of theft as in the criminal case which had been registered for this act, he had been acquitted by the trial Court. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G. M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2006 AIR(SC) 2129. He has further submitted that the inquiry officer who had been appointed earlier had been transferred from service and the successor could not have proceeded any further in the matter without fresh order of appointing him as inquiry officer.