DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13. 10. 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of his compulsory retirement by way of penalty, has been dismissed.

(2.) APPELLANT was serving with the respondents as a Constable having been appointed as such on 18. 6. 1976. While posted at Police Station, Dholpur, he was entrusted the duty of sentry at that Police Station on 9. 5. 1986 from 12 noon to 3 p. m. and thereafter again from 12 in the midnight to 3 a. m. The duty Officer, Shri Sita Ram, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police made sudden inspection at about 1. 20 p. m. on 9. 5. 1986 and found the appellant missing from his duty. He made an entry to this effect in the police rojnamcha at S. No. 392. It is alleged that the appellant returned back to the Police Station at about 4. 30 a. m. A chargesheet was served on the appellant on 1. 8. 1987 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (C. C. A.) Rules, 1958 on account of his absence from duty. While the first charge against the petitioner was that he was found absent from the sentry duty from 12 in the mid night to 3 a. m. on 9. 5. 1986 and second that the rifle entrusted to him for sentry duty was found in damaged condition and that out of 10 cartridges, one was found missing and third charge was to the effect that he misused the rifle and one cartridge. The petitioner in his reply to the charge-sheet, explained that he had been having stomach disorder and dysentery for last three days and that at the relevant time he had gone to his quarter situated in the premises of the Police Station itself to answer the call of the nature. When he came back, the duty officer Sitaram (ASI) asked him about the reason of his absence. Though the appellant explained, but he became angry and made the entry in the rojnamcha and other proceedings were drawn and papers were prepared in his presence. He explained that when he had gone to answer the call of the nature, one of the cartridges slipped out of his pocket. Though in the night, it could not be traced but following morning, it was found and deposited. He denied that the rifle was ever used for firing and asserted that all the cartridges were found intact. There was thus no question of rifle being used in firing. His defense was that this very rifle was used in an encounter with the dacoits and was damaged at that time. The rifle which was given to the appellant during sentry duty was different, but because the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police wanted to frame the appellant, this rifle was shown to have been entrusted to him. When the appellant was entrusted the duty of sentry, no entry of butt number of the rifle was made in the rojnamcha. This manipulation was made by the ASI when next man was put on sentry duty.

(3.) PER contra, Shri Harshvardhan Nandwana, learned Government Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that it is not a mere case of absence from sentry duty, but what is found proved is that the appellant absented from his duty with the rifle and the cartridges, one of which was found missing. Learned Government Counsel argued that the appellant could not have absented from his duties without permission from the duty officer. Explanation offered by the appellant for his absence from duties cannot be accepted because police force is a disciplined force and a sentry discharges important duty of guarding the police station. Contention of the appellant that only one charge has been proved is not correct because the appellate authority has found charges No. 2 and 3 also partly proved. Discussion made by the appellate authority as to non- sending of the rifle for examination of ballistic expert cannot be read out of context. Learned Government Counsel argued that the settled proposition of law is that this Court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment, unless it is shown that there was some lacuna in the disciplinary proceedings. He further argued that the appellant authority has already taken a lenient view of the matter by reducing the penalty of removal to that of compulsory retirement, on account of which the appellant would now be entitled to receive pension. It was argued that there was no case for interference. This appeal be therefore dismissed.