SHRI KANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of his removal dt. 26.02.1992. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable in G.R.P., Ajmer in 1966. He was promoted on the post of Head Constable in year 1970. He was transferred from G.R.P., Ajmer to Police Lines District Jaipur in March, 1983. On 04.08.1988 he was appointed as Incharge Armed Guard in Income Tax Department. He was served with a charge -sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 some time in October, 1988. Charge against petitioner was that while he was posted with Police Line, Jaipur and was appointed as Incharge Armed Guard in Income Tax Department, he in drunken position went to Circle near Railway Station, Jaipur on a rickshaw with one Rajendra Singh, who was under the influence of liquor. The rickshaw was parked on the main road which led to obstruction in traffic. Shri Kailash Chand Meena, Constable of RPF, requested him to remove the rickshaw, whom he started beating, as a result of which Shri Kailash Chand suffered injuries. A criminal case was also registered against him with Police Station, J.R.P., Jaipur in which challan was filed in the Court on 30.09.1988.

(3.) SHRI Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the writ petition and submitted that Enquiry Officer has found charges against the petitioner proved on the basis of evidence and number of witnesses. Since Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer, he was not required to record detailed findings on the charges. Learned Counsel submitted that mere fact that date of incident has been incorrectly recorded in the charge -sheet as 13.08.1988 instead of 15.08.1988 would not show that incident did not take place, more particularly, when number of witnesses have supported charges against petitioner. On the question of supply of enquiry report, learned Counsel cited judgment of Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar., : AIR 1994 SC 1074 and argued that Supreme Court in this judgment diluted the law laid down by Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) to hold that mere non -supply of enquiry report by itself would not be a reason to annul the order of penalty and direct reinstatement of the delinquent. In such cases, at the maximum if the Court finds that prejudice has been caused, the Court can only direct to furnish him with copy of report and afford opportunity to show if and how was the prejudice caused, but with liberty to hold fresh enquiry from stage of furnishing report.