STATE Vs. DANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a special appeal under section 181 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated October 13, 1969 in S. B. Civil writ petition No. 535 of 1966 quashing the order dated September 7, 1950 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur dismissing the respondent from service.

(2.) THE respondent Danmal, a Head Constable of police, was working as Accounts Clerk in policelines at Pali. On complaints of bribery and misappropriation the Superintendent of Police on February 6, 1953 went to the police on lines for physical checking of the cash balance in the hands of the respondent Danmal. According to the department, the respondent in first instance showed his willingness to unlock the cash box for checking, but soon-after changed his mind and avoided the checking of the cash on the ground that he had left the key of the cash box at his residence. THE Superintendent of Police allowed the respondent to bring the key of cash box from his residence. When the respondent did not return for a pretty long time the Superintendent of Police sealed the cash box and went away from the police lines. On February 7, 1963 Shri N. N. Diwan I. P. S. , Additional Superintendent of Police was deputed for physical verification of the cash but the respondent not only refused to allow Shri Diwan to make physical verification of the cash but also misbehaved with him and other police officers who had accompanied him. Shri N. N Diwan thereupon, took the respondent to the bungalow of the Superintendent of Police where also the respondent acted in in-disciplined, mannerless and insolent manner. He did not accede to the request of the Superintendent of Police for physical verification of the cash with the result that the Superintendent of Police had to approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pali. At the persuation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pali the respondent allowed checking of the cash. It appears that at the time of the physical checking the respondent gave in writing to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to permit him to mix such amount of cash which according to him was left in his pocket when he went home on February 6, 1953 to bring the key of the cash box. THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not permit the cash from the petitioner's pocket to be mixed with the cash lying in the cash box, but he counted separately the cash lying in the cash box and that offered by the respondent from his Pocket. It is alleged by the Department that the respondent absented himself from the police lines from February 7, 1953 to February 19, 1953.

(3.) THE only relevant application in this connection is Ex. 18 which contains list of witnesses to be examined and list of documents to be tendered in evidence by the respondent in his defence. A perusal of the application Ex, 18 shows that the respondent therein mentioned against each witness and each document the reason why he wanted to produce that witness or document. THE Enquiry Officer vide his order Ex. 19 disallowed examination of some of the witnesses and production of some of the documents mentioned therein on the ground that they were irrelevant. We have carefully gone through the application Ex. 18 and the order Ex. 19 passed thereon. We are satisfied that the witnesses as well as the documents whose examination or production was disallowed by the Enquiry Officer were either wholly irrelevant to the enquiry or were concerned to disprove charge No. 3 mentioned in charge sheet Ex. 4 viz absence of the respondent from the Police Lines, Pali from 7-2-1953 to 19 2-1953 Mr. Mridul was not able to point out from the order Ex. 19 that any such witness or any such document was disallowed by the Enquiry Officer which had any relevancy in regard to charges other than charge No. 3. In the circumstances, the utmost that can be said is that the order Ex. 19 prejudiced the respondent to prove his innocence in respect of charge No. 3 Even if this charge No 3 is ignored from consideration there still remains two other charges for which the respondent was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. It appears that this aspect of the case was not placed before the learned Single Judge.