BAL MUKUND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 7th January, 1994, passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting penalty of removal from the government service, confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18th July, 1994; the petitioner has instituted the present writ application praying for the following relief(s): -

(2.) Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are: that the petitioner while working as Constable in the Police Department, at Police Station, Nayapura, Kota City, Kota, was served with a charge sheet on 11th February, 1992, under Sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1958', for short). The petitioner was charged for having contracted marriage with Smt. Saguna Bai daughter of Shri Gashi Lal while having a living spouse i.e. Smt. Manju Bai daughter of Shri Ram Prasad Nayak, wife of the petitioner, and thus, violated Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1971', for short). Wife of the petitioner, Smt. Manju Bai, also levelled allegations for demand of motorcycle and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousands) as dowry. A criminal case under Sec. 498A of IPC, was registered being Crime No. 428 of 1989, at Police Station, Nayapura, Kota. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry strictly in compliance of the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, affording ample opportunity to the petitioner while returning a finding of guilt on the charges, as would be evident from the inquiry report dated 28th February, 1993. The Disciplinary Authority having considered the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the facts, materials and evidence adduced by the parties; by a detailed order, concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and imposed the penalty of removal from the government service vide order dated 7th January, 1994. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 18 July, 1994, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, confirmed the penalty inflicted.

(3.) During the course of hearing, on 1st November, 2012, the fact of non -supply of a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner surfaced. In the backdrop of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Union of India v/s. Mohd. Ramjan Khan: : (1991) 1 SCC 588, the Court, directed the State -respondents to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner so as to have his response as to whether any prejudice has been caused for non -supply of the inquiry report?