CHETAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner aggrieved of the orders dated 24th October, 1997 and 2nd June, 1998; has instituted the present writ proceedings with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned orders terminating his services.

(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are that while working as Constable, GRP Police, at Ajmer, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet for creating disturbance after having consumed liquor in the company of Ram Swaroop, Mool Chand and Dara Singh. It was further alleged that the petitioner along with Ram Swaroop, Mool Chand and Dara Singh gave beating to one Naiki Ram, Constable, while he was going to mark his attendance. On conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report with a finding in affirmative on the charges levelled against the petitioner holding him guilty. A copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner seeking his response by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, agreed with his conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him and consequently, inflicted the penalty of removal from service. Vide order dated 24th October, 1997, the Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty declining the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 2nd June, 1998; of which the petitioner is aggrieved of.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, has vehemently argued that the penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, which according to the State -respondents, was found to be proved. According to the learned counsel, the Disciplinary Authority has failed to record any reason while inflicting the penalty of removal that the misconduct, committed by the petitioner, was of such a grave nature, which called for an extreme punishment of the nature of removal from service. Therefore, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are required to be interfered with by this Court. In order to fortify his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v/s. S.S. Ahluwalia: : (2007) 7 SCC 257, Ramanuj Pandey v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.: : (2009) 7 SCC 248, Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v/s. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association & Anr.: : (2007) 4 SCC 669, Ram Autar Singh v/s. State Public Service Tribunal & Ors.: : (1998) 9 SCC 666, and State of U.P. & Ors. v/s. Ram Daras Yadav: : 2010 (2) SCC 236.