UDAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was initially appointed as a Constable in the respondent-department in the year 1989. Though, a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules' for short) was issued to the appellant, however, while dispensing the departmental enquiry as per provisions of Rule 19(2) of CCA Rules, the appellant was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 6.10.1994. The reason given by the Disciplinary Authority for dispensing with the enquiry had been that looking to the serious nature of the allegations of rape with the sister of one of the colleagues against the appellant and the hostile agitated atmosphere in the department, it will not be possible to hold a regular enquiry against the appellant. As has come on record, a charge sheet for the offence under Sections 366, 376 IPC had also been filed against the appellant before the trial Court. However, the trial Court, vide order dated 6.1.1995, acquitted the appellant from both the charges levelled against him. After acquittal, the appellant filed an appeal against the order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority on 10.1.1995. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority in a summary manner only on the ground of limitation.

(2.) Challenging the order of dismissal as also the order dated 3.5.1995 passed by the Appellate Authority, a writ petition came to be filed before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.5.1997 directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the appellant afresh on merits according to law as per provisions of Rule 30(2) of the CCA Rules. The appeal again came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.9.1997. A fresh writ petition was filed by the appellant before this Court challenging the order of dismissal as also the appellate order dated 27.9.1997. The writ petition, however, came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.8.1998. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties we have carefully gone through the material on record.