GAUTAM JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, they are heard and decided together taking the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6372/05 as a leading case.

(2.) PETITIONER Gautam Jain at the relevant time was holding the post of Sub -Inspector of Police and was posted at Police Station Shivganj, District Sirohi. In the midnight of 12/13th January, 2000, he was directed by the concerned Station House Officer (for short "the SHO" hereinafter) P.S. Shivganj to proceed along with Head Constable on a secret information received by him through Mukhbir that illicit liquor is being transported in a jeep bearing No. RJ 22 -C 1673. An entry to that effect was recorded in the Rojnamcha at 12.10 A.M. of the midnight of 12/13.1.2000. Petitioner Himmatdan Charan in SBCW No. 1,345/05 was Circle Inspector at the relevant time and was SHO of the said police station Shivganj and petitioner Tulsha Ram was Head Constable posted to said police station. The copy of Rojnamcha has been placed on record as Annex. 1. On the instructions of the SHO, petitioner Gautam Jain and Head Constable Tulsha Ram with their subordinate staff arranged a Nakabandi at the site. While holding Nakabandi, the Jeep bearing No. RJ 22 -C 1673 in respect of which secret information was received by the SHO through Mukhbir, came. The petitioner and other subordinate police staff tried to stop the said jeep, however, the driver of the jeep fled away with the jeep which was carrying illicit liquor. The jeep was chased and ultimately the driver of the jeep stopped the jeep near to a river at Woodland Hotel and fled away in bushes and could not be traced. The jeep containing illicit liquor was brought to the police station and FIR to that effect was recorded being FIR No. 09/2000. The usual investigation was carried out including seizure of the said jeep and the liquor lying therein and statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. It appears that another FIR being FIR No. 11/2000 was registered at the instance of some liquor smugglers regarding committing theft of the jeep punishable for the offence under Section 379 IPC, whereas in respect of very jeep, FIR for the offence punishable under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act was registered which was prior in time and in that FIR the jeep was seized along with the illicit liquor which the jeep was found to have been carrying. Both the FIRs were investigated. Initially the matter was investigated by Additional Superintendent of Police, Bali namely Uchhavlal Chhanval, however, subsequently the investigation was transferred to CID (CB) and ultimately the Additional Superintendent of Police, CID (CB) namely Harish Chandra Singh investigated the matter. When the investigation was carried out by CID (CB), it revealed that the police received secret information which was recorded in the Rojnamcha and thereafter the police proceeded to hold Nakabandi and Nakabandi was held, the jeep was intercepted and ultimately it was seized found carrying illicit liquor and the liquor was also seized. However, from the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer it revealed that the driver of the jeep stopped the jeep at Woodland Hotel near river and thereafter ran away in the bushes. A notice was served to the registered owner of the jeep under Section 138 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in reply thereto, the owner of the jeep stated that he has handed over the jeep to one Narpat and Ramesh, at any rate, they were not found and ultimately the police submitted final report on the ground that the accused not found. The other FIR lodged by so called liquor smuggler also came to be investigated and Investigating Officer concluded that no, such occurrence has taken place and therefore, a negative final report to the effect that no such occurrence as recorded in the FIR has taken place. At any rate, both the FIRs ultimately resulted in final report, one lodged by petitioner on the ground of accused not traceable and other lodged by liquor smuggler on the ground of no such occurrence took place. A departmental inquiry was initiated against all the three petitioners under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'CCA Rules' hereinafter). The FIR lodged by petitioner Gautam Jain is Annex.2 dated 13.1.2000 being FIR No. 09/2000 for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the other FIR being FIR No. 11/2000 lodged by Narpat Mewada is Annex.3 for the offence under Section 379 IPC. The memorandum of charges was served to the petitioner vide Annex.4. The petitioner submitted an explanation in the form of reply vide Annex.5 denying the charges. By order Annex.6 dated 22.11.2000, the disciplinary authority, Superintendent of Police, Sirohi concluding the inquiry, came to the conclusion that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is satisfactory and agreed with the explanation submitted by the petitioner and held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved and therefore, exonerated the petitioner. After the petitioner having been exonerated by the disciplinary authority vide order Annex.6, the Inspector General of Police by order Annex.7 dated 27.2.2001 initiated second inquiry on the same set of facts and allegations as mentioned in Annex.7. The charges in Annex.7 and as mentioned in Annex.3 and Annex.6 are almost identical. A reply/explanation to the second charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner vide Annex.8 giving the details of the investigation carried out by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CID (CB), the conclusion arrived at by him which supported the explanation given by the petitioner and requested to drop the inquiry as no delinquency is made out. By order Annex.9 dated 5.10.2001 the Deputy Inspector General of Police held that the charges against the petitioner stands proved and visited him with penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment for two years without cumulative effect. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority vide Annex. 10 which came to be dismissed by order Annex. 11 dated 13.08.2002 against which the petitioner filed a review petition vide Annex. 12 before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, Jaipur which also came to be rejected by order Annex. 13. Hence these writ petitions.

(3.) A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents mainly taking the stand that the said jeep while transporting the illicit liquor was intercepted by the raiding party of the liquor contractor and brought to the police station and thereupon the police seized the said jeep and the liquor lying therein and therefore, according to the respondents the story of Nakabandi as set up by the petitioners was not correct. However, the respondents even did not dispute that the jeep was seized while it was transporting illicit liquor and crime report for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act was registered.