MOHAN SINGH BHATI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the out-set, it is to be lamented that despite several representations made by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 did not apply his mind on the question whether dismissal of the petitioner is sustainable under the law. The attitude of the State functionaries in shirking from their responsibilities is one of the main reasons of unwanted inflow of cases in courts. The State Government and its instrumentalities are the largest litigants in the State and looking to the increasing number of cases in the Courts, it is high time for the State functionaries to act objectively and decide grievances of their employees at-least in accordance with law. Hence, it is essential that as and when any representation is received by them or a notice for demand of justice is served upon them the same should be decided at once and, the aggrieved party should the intimated of the result with reasons. If this practice is adopted, it shall result in minimising cases against the State and its instrumentalities.

(2.) Be that as it may. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The petitioner, who entered in service of erstwhile Ajmer State as Lower Division Clerk on 11.5.1956, was absorbed in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer with effect from 1.11.1956 on merger of Ajmer in the State of Rajasthan. On the basis of a report made by respondent No. 2, at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer, 12 charge-sheets were filed against the petitioner in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer City (East) after completion of investigation. Looking to the graveness of charges, the petitioner was put under suspension w.e.f. Jan. 8, 1968 during the pendency of criminal cases against him. Out of 12 criminal cases the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, exonerated the petitioner in five cases acquitting him of all the charges. However, in the remaining 7 criminal cases, he was convicted and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for various terms ranging from 11/4 years to 11/2 years and fine from Rs. 150.00 to 200.00. On conviction of the petitioner in 7 criminal cases under section 409 Indian Penal Code he was dismissed from the service vide order dated 14.9.1978 w.e.f. 29.8.1978, the date of order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting him.

(3.) Being aggrieved against his conviction and sentences, the petitioner preferred appeals in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer, from where they were made over to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer for disposal. The learned Special Judge, accepted all the seven appeals and acquitted the petitioner of the charge levelled against him vide judgment dated 27.5.1992. Certified copies of the judgment are placed on record as Ex.3 to Ex.9. Thus, the petitioner stood acquitted in all the twelve criminal cases which instituted against him. After his acquittal, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on Oct. 6, 1995 along with copies of the judgments of the appellate court acquitting him. In the representation he maintained that after his acquittal, he is entitled to be re-instated with all consequential benefits. It appears that no action was taken on this representation. The petitioner, then, sent a reminder on 14.11.1995 with copies to the Home Secretary, Inspector General of Police and D.I.G. Police, but still no consideration was made on the representation. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash and set aside the suspension order (Ex.1) and dismissal order (Ex.2) with all consequential benefits.