JAI NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Patrolling Officer with the Department of Excise was served with a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ( hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1958) to explain his conduct relating to a charge for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000.00 from one Prem Kumar and also for having possession over 100 gms. of opium. For the same charges a criminal case was also lodged against the petitioner, however, in that a final report was given and was accepted by the competent court.

(2.) The petitioner denied the charges alleged, therefore, the disciplinary authority decided to proceed with a regular inquiry against him as per the provisions of the Rules of 1958. During the course of inquiry statements of number of prosecution witnesses were recorded and the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine them. Certain documents were also placed on record by the prosecution. The complainant Prem Kumar, from whom the petitioner is said to have demanded bribe, was also examined by the inquiry officer. Two independent witnesses viz. Achal Singh and Vasudev were also examined by the inquiry officer.

(3.) The inquiry officer after considering whatever material available on record submitted a report of inquiry on 19.5.1989 to the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commissioner Excise, Udaipur. The inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner from the allegation No.2 that is regarding illegal possession of 100 gms. of opium, however, by relying upon the statements of Hamir Singh, Narpat Singh, Binj Raj, Sohan Singh, Amra Ram and Kishan Lal, held the petitioner guilty for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 2000.00 from Sh. Prem Kumar. The disciplinary authority by its order dated 26.8.1989 imposed a penalty of reversion to the post of Jamadar Gr.I from the post of Patrolling Officer Gr.II after holding the petitioner guilty for the misconduct alleged. Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid the petitioner preferred a petition for writ (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3496/89) before this Court which came to be accepted on 6.12.1989, holding therein that the petitioner could have not been reverted to the post of Jamadar being never born in that Cadre. While doing so, this Court remanded the matter to disciplinary authority to reconsider record of the inquiry and to pass an order afresh.