SAHIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority by which the punishment of termination of his services has been imposed.

(2.) A charge -sheet was served upon the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 in respect of different charges. The Dy. Superintendent of Police Baran was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The charge -sheet was issued on 16.7.91 and the reply was submitted by the petitioner. During the course of the inquiry proceedings a letter was submitted by the petitioner in which it was stated that he admits all the charges and does not want any inquiry to be conducted and as such a lenient view of the matter may be taken. This letter was submitted on 17.2.1992 and the fact that such a letter was submitted was recorded in the order -sheet on which the signature of the petitioner exists.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the copy of the inquiry report has not been given. In my opinion, the moment the petitioner admits the charges there is no necessity for providing a copy of the inquiry report to him. It is on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner that further inquiry was not conducted and therefore he prevented the department in bringing the evidence in support of the charges which would otherwise have been brought and as such it cannot be allowed to be agitated subsequently on the ground that a copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to him. In the appeal preferred before the Dy. Inspector General of Police, this contention was raised that the application submitted on 17.2.1992 was voluntary in which the charges were accepted by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer cannot fabricate a document for which no reason was shown. The finding which has been recorded is that of fact and the contention of the petitioner appears to be an after thought. If any signature was obtained on blank paper this fact could have been immediately refuted on 17.2.1992 either to the higher authorities or even a FIR could have been filed against the Inquiry Officer, if in fact he had obtained the signatures on blank papers. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has force.