BAHADUR RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 23. 02. 1994 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Churu whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service from the post of Constable in the Police Department as well as enquiry report dated 30. 01. 1993 of the Enquiry Officer (Dy. S. P. , Churu) and so also order passed by the appellate authority, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner dated 14. 03. 1995 and the order passed by the Reviewing Authority dated 19. 02. 1996 whereby the order of termination passed by the Superintendent of Police, Churu was upheld.

(2.) ACCORDING to the facts narrated in the petition, the petitioner was substantively working on the post of Constable in the Police Department. Initially he was appointed on 01. 01. 1985. It is indicated in the petition that the petitioner along with two other persons was charged for theft under Sections 379 and 411, I. P. C. and an FIR was lodged bearing No. 89/1991 on 25. 05. 1991 at the Police Station Sri Dungargarh (Churu District ). In that FIR, the police submitted FR after investigation on the ground of limitation of jurisdiction of Police Station Shri Dungargarh. Thereafter, for the same allegation, another FIR was registered at Police Station Doodhwa Khara on 29. 05. 1991. In that FIR, investigation was conducted and, thereafter, challan was filed by the police against the petitioner and two other persons for offence under Section 420, I. P. C. in the Court of Chief Judl. Magistrate, Churu. In connection with that FIR, the petitioner was kept in police custody for 10 days and then he was released on bail. After trial, vide judgment dated 25. 05. 1995, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Churu acquitted the petitioner along with two other persons from the charges levelled against them. The said judgment is placed on record as Annex.-3.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the departmental enquiry as many as 13 witnesses were examined and, before the criminal Court also, the prosecution led evidence of the same set of witnesses. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses recorded at the trial completely failed to establish the charge against the petitioner that any fraud was at all committed by the petitioner; then, it is clear that concocted and false story was coined up for implicating the petitioner and the petitioner has been charge-sheeted by the Department merely on the ground that after investigation in the FIR filed by Dana Ram on 29. 05. 1991 the police have filed challan and in the investigation it has come out that the petitioner has committed offence of fraud. On that basis, the petitioner was arrested and challan was filed. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet issued under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules cannot be termed as misconduct unless it is proved before the trial Court in the criminal case. Mere filing of the challan against a State employee does not constitute misconduct so as to warrant disciplinary action, therefore, in the face of the finding recorded by the trial Court, the termination order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Superintendent of Police before conclusion of the criminal trial vide order dated 23. 02. 1994 deserves to be quashed.