GURUCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was serving as the Station House Officer at the Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner in the year 1961. One Mst. Tulchhi died on March 19, 1961 and a dispute arose in respect of her properly between her daughter Smt. Meena and Radhey Shyam, who claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased. In order to avoid a conflict, some respectable members of the community to which the aforesaid parties belonged stored the entire property belonging to Smt. Tulchhi in a room in the house of the deceased and locked the same, so that the same may be handed over to the rightful owner as and when a decision was arrived at between the rival claimants in respect of the legal heirship. Smt, Meena submitted a complaint before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner City, on March 29, 1961, who directed Mansingh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Bikaner to visit the spot personally and prepare an inventory of all the articles of the deceased and produce the same in his Court. Mansingh accompanied by the petitioner went to the spot, collected all the valuable articles and cash in a box belonging to Smt. Meena, got the same sealed In presence of respectable persons of the community and pasted a paper slip thereon containing the signatures of the aforesaid persons, who were present on the occasion The box was brought to the Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner and was kept in the 'Malkbana' of the said Police Station, although the key of the box was kept by Mansingh. On April 4, 1961 Mansingh prepared an inventory of the valuable articles and counted the cash which amounted to Rs. 5716/ -, at the Police Station, Kotage in the presence of motbirs and the aforesaid box was again locked and sealed, but the paper slip pasted on the upper lid of the box was this time signed by Mansingh and the petitioner only. Thereafter the box was again placed in the 'Malkhana' of the Police Station, Kotegate. On May 9, 1961 Mansingh sent for the box and the petitioner carried the same to the Court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner City in a Government jeep, but probably as arrangements could not be made on that date for the weighment of the articles, the Magistrate ordered the box to be produced before him on a subsequent date. However, Mansingh had in the meanwhile, broken open the seals on the said box, but as the case was adjourned be closed the box again, locked it and banded over the same to the petitioner for being kept in the 'Malkhana' of the Police station, Kotgate. While keeping the aforesaid box in the 'Malkhana', Head Constable Raghunath Prasad noticed that the box did not bear any seals and brought this fact to the knowledge of the petitioner, who directed him to put the seals of the Police Station, Kotgate upon the box. A paper slip signed by Mansingh was no doubt pasted on the upper lid of the box. Probably, as the dispute between the parties was taken to a civil court, the box remained lying in the Police Station, Kotgate for a long time and meanwhile Mansingh was transferred from there. Ultimately the Senior Civil Judge, Bikaner directed that the box including the valuables and cash contained therein be handed over to Smt. Meena and then Station House Officer, Incharge of the Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner broke open the lock of the box for handing over the property contained therein to Smt. Meena. At that time it was discovered that the cash amounting to Rs. 5716/ - was missing from the box.

(2.) THE discovery of the aforesaid loss of cash amounting to Rs. 5716/ - from the aforesaid box kept at the Police Station, Kotgate led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and Mansingh. A memorandum, charge sheet and statement of allegations were issued by the State Government to the petitioner on February 16, 1965. It was considered propos that a joint enquiry under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification; Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') be held against the petitioner and Massingh in respect of the aforesaid matter and the Governor of Rajasthan passed an order on August 17, 1965 directing a joint enquiry against the two delinquent officers. The Additional Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries was designated as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the joint enquiry against the petitioner and Mansingh. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the State Government, in which he found the charges proved against both, Mansingh as well as the petitioner and held that both of them were guilty of gross neligence and carelessness in the discharge of their duties. The Enquiry Officer was of the view that the penalty of reduction by two of stages in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect and stoppage of two increments for two years be inflicted upon Mansingh and the penalty of with holding of two grade increments with cumulative effect be inflicted upon the petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer was considered by the State Government and as a major penalty was proposed to be inflicted upon Mansingh, a notice to show cause against the proposed punishment was served upon him, as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The entire matter thereafter was referred by the State Government to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') for its advice, which agreed with the view of the Enquiry Officer that negligence and carelessness of Mansingh and the petitioner were fully established. However, the Commission advised that the penalty proposed to be inflicted upon Mansingh be reduced to stoppage of grade increments for two years without cumulative effect but so far as the petitioner was concerned, the Commission opined that the proposed penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The State Government ultimately agreed with the advice tendered by the Commission and by its order dated January 7, 1969 Mansingh was reduced by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect, while it directed the the stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect in case of the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted a review petition against the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) THUS , in the circumstance referred to above, it cannot be said that the order of Enquiry Officer dated June 20, 1967 holding the absence of the petitioner on the date as without sufficient cause was unjustified or unreasonable. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was any denial of reasonable opportunity to the to the petitioner in the matter of production of his defence.