RAMESH KUMAR JOHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ, order or direction for bringing up and quashing the order dated April 30, 1976, made in second appeal by the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, hereinafter called the Service Rules, dismissing the applicant from its service, and also for directing the said Government to reinstate the applicant in service with payment of emoluments due to him upto date. The facts, about which there is not much dispute, may be recapitulated here.

(2.) RAMESH Kumar Johari, the applicant, was appointed as a constable in the police department of the Government of Rajasthan in 1953 In due course, he was promoted as Head Constable. In 1972, he was posted as Head Constable to the Police Post, Delhi Gate, Ajmer.

(3.) THE Disciplinary Authority appointed Shri P.D. Upadhayay, Home Inspector, Ajmer, as the Inquiring Officer. THE Inquiring Officer recorded the evidence produced on both sides. He prepared his report of inquiry on July 19, 1972 (See Ex.1 at pages 12 to 17 of the paper book). He exonerated the applicant of, all the articles of the charge-sheet, adding that, even according to Premlata's own showing, the applicant remained confined to sick-bed in his house throughout from February 3 to 10, 1972, and that the Sharbat allegedly containing alcohol or some other intoxicant had been given her for drinking by Rajkumari without the consent or knowledge of the applicant. On receipt of this report, the Disciplinary Authority went through it and expressed his disagreement with it. He prepared his own report (See Ex. 2 at pages 30 to 34 of the paper book), recording the following findings therein - (i) Rajkumari, wife of applicant, had practised deception on Premlata and thus taken her to her house on February 3, 1972; (ii) Rajkumari administered some intoxicant to Premlata in the form of Sharbat on February 3, 1972, as a result of which Premlata lost consciousness; (iii) Rajkumari kept Premlata confined in her house from February 3 to 10, 1972, on one pretext or the other; (iv) THE applicant was sick from February 3 to February 10, 1972, but not to such an extent that he was not aware of the presence of Premlata in his house and what his wife was doing to her; (v) In the circumstances, it is proved that whatever criminal acts were committed by Rajkumari in applicant's house in relation to Premlata, were committed by her in concert with and connivance of the applicant; and (vi) THE fact that the applicant permitted his wife to keep in their house an unmarried young girl, who was stranger to the family for such a long time, clearly shows that the applicant was a partner in crime with his wife. It was on the basis of these findings that the Disciplinary Authority held that all the four articles of charge against the applicant were proved. THE Disciplinary Authority served a notice on the applicant annexing thereto the report of his own findings requiring the applicant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. THE applicant filed his reply reiterating that he was sick throughout the relevant period and that he was not guilty of any misconduct. THE Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the explanation of the applicant. By his order dated December 18, 1972 (see Ex. 3 at pages 18 to 22 of the paper book), he dismissed the applicant from service.