VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 16 -6 -1982 (Annex. 4), 28 -2 -1983/1 -3 -1183 (Annex.6) and 2 -5 -1984 (Annex.7).

(2.) THE petitioner was serving as a Constable in the Police Department and he was charge -sheeted and an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') was initiated against him. The charge against the petitioner was that he remained absent from 28 -5 -1981 to 4 -2 -1982 and despite notices he did not report on duty. The petitioner submitted his reply to to the charge -sheet and explained that on 13 -5 -1981 he left the police line after seeking permission from the R.I. Police Line and he also sought permission to leave the Head Quarter. Thereafter he applied for 5 days C.L. and one day's permission to leave Head Quarter and the same was granted to him and he was supposed to report on duty on 28 -5 -1981. Unfortunately during this period the father of the petitioner became the victim of gangesters and he was hospitalised. Therefore he was looking after his father's welfare. He further submits that this incident was further followed by a dispute with regard to land with the people of village Dawli and on account of that dispute the petitioner was also implicated in a criminal case under Section 307 IPC and he was detained in judicial custody and after some time he was released on bail. After release on bail there arose a dispute. Therefor, the petitioner submits that on account of unavoidable circumstances he could not attend the office. It was also submitted that during the period of absence no notice was served on him nor the same were served on any of the memberr of his family. However, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory The Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and the enquiry was conducted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police Churu. The petitioner submitted that he did not receive any notice from the Enquiry Officer. He does not know whether any enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer in his report stated that four time summons have been issued to the delinquent but he did not report before the Enquiry Officer, therefore the enquiry could not be proceeded under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and a resort was taken to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and found the petitioner guilty. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal before the non -petitioner No. 2. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 and the review petition was also dismissed. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) THE first and foremost question is that what is the scope of rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1958. Rule 19 reads as under: