MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Man Singh was serving as a Constable under the Superintendent of Police, District Bikanar, Bikaner. While he was posted at Police Station, Kolayat, he proceeded on five days' casual leave and together with two days' holidays on 4th May, 1992. He was to report back to the Police Station on 12th May, 1992. When he. . . his absence was entered in Rojnamcha. A telegram of the petitioner was received in Police Station on 15th May, 1992 seeking extension of leave by seven day's. During the period this seven days a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on 17th May, 1992 with Police Station, Nokha regarding an incident which had taken place on 11. 00 PM in village Roda for offences under Sections 302, 323, 323/342 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. THE petitioner during the course of investigation of the said criminal case was arrested on 19th May, 1992 and was sent to Jail. THE petitioner Man Singh along with three other accused was convicted for the aforesaid offences by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner vide judgment dated 15th May, 1997 and was sentenced to imprisonment of life.

(2.) A Memorandum of charge-sheet was served on the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short `cca Rules') on 29th July, 1994 when he was still in confinement. Charge No. 1 against him was that he did not report back on duty when the period of sanctioned leave expired on 12th May, 1992. Charge No. 2 was to the effect that telegram for extension of leave of seven days' was received with a delay of four days' and the reason of illness assigned therein was not substantiated by any medical certificate. Charge No. 3 was relating to his involvement in the criminal case in which reference was made to pending trial against him. It appears that petitioner did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet in the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority vide his order dated 31st August, 1994 appointed a Circle Officer (Sough) as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 7th November, 1994 to the disciplinary authority to the effect that the delinquent employee Man Singh was in judicial custody in Central Jail, Bikaner and, therefore, unable to defend himself. Some of the witnesses are from the party opposing the delinquent in the criminal trial and, therefore, they would not like to appear during inquiry before the delinquent officer in jail. In the absence of defence assistant also the delinquent would not be able to get justice. Conduct of inquiry in such circumstances would be against the principles of natural justice. On receipt of such report from the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 8th November, 1994 dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and directed that disciplinary proceedings shall be re-initiated after the petitioner came out of jail upon being released.

(3.) I have given my earnest consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and perused the record.