KHAWAJU KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 3. 1. 1989 whereby he was dismissed from service in a departmental enquiry and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 5. 4. 1989 as well as order dated 4. 7. 1991 passed in review petition and further challenged inaction on the part of the Director General of Police of not setting aside the dismissal order and reinstate him on account of acquittal order dated 4. 9. 1995 passed in criminal case lodged against him.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated that relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled as Constable on 13. 3. 1970 and was posted in Police Line. On 30. 3. 1987, two Constables Ram Singh and Laxmi Chand posted at out post Kanwara under Police Station Jhalarapatan while going out for service of summons, spotted two Kanjars with guns on the way. Both Antariya Kanjar and Ramchandariya Kanjar were taken into custody at Police Station Jhalarapatan. On the same date, a FIR No. 30/87 for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was registered against Antariya Kanjar. During the investigation, it was revealed that the license of 12 Bore Gun No. 14949 alleged to be recovered from Antariya Kanjar, which was issued in the name of the petitioner. In enquiry on being suspected that the original number of gun has been tempered by the petitioner in his gun and number 194949 has been superimposed whereas the original gun was sold to Antariya Kanjar. Hence, a FIR No. 55/87 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/25, 29 and 8/3 of the Arms Act and the gun of the petitioner was seized. The petitioner was arrested also. A separate case was registered against Antariya Kanjar.

(3.) SUBMISSION of counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case by giving benefit of doubt. The said judgment in the criminal trial will not carry same weight as would be carried by the judgment wherein the petitioner is honourably acquitted. Apart from above, there is no provision of review after the judgment by the Criminal Court in case where the departmental enquiry has already been concluded and punishment has been awarded. The respondents have also contended that proof of departmental enquiry and criminal case is different.