HEEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant special appeal (writ) has been preferred by the appellant Heem Singh being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.02.2018 passed by learned Single Bench of this court, whereby, the Writ Petition No.521/2009 preferred by the petitioner craving the following relief was rejected:-

(2.) In this regard he drew the court's attention to the order dated 11.12.2003 (Annex.8) passed by the disciplinary authority and urged that the charge No.3, which was the principal charge against the appellant, was based on the evidence of witnesses Jodh Singh (P.W.1), Devi Singh (P.W.2), Shankar Singh (P.W.3) and Hamer Singh (P.W.4). He referred to the statements of these witnesses and urged that even if the same are considered as being true on the face of the record, manifestly, no inference can be drawn therefrom that the accused appellant murdered the deceased Bhanwar Singh by running his tractor over him or that he conspired to have Bhanwar Singh murdered. He urged that while passing the impugned order dated 11.12.2003 (Annex.8), the disciplinary authority not only misread the examination-in- chief of the witnesses, but also failed to even barely advert to the cross-examination conducted from them on behalf of the delinquent employee. He urged that the consideration of evidence as done by the disciplinary authority without adverting to the cross-examination conducted from the witnesses is absolutely perverse and is reflective of gross non-application of mind and amounts to a blatant violation of principles of natural justice and fairness as well as Rules 16 (6), (7), (8), (9) and 11 (A) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. He further submitted that the appellate authority while passing the order dated 17.06.2005 (Annex.10) and affirming the order of the disciplinary authority, fell into the same error and did not even barely advert to the evidence led by the department and more particularly, the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the delinquent employee and mechanically dismissed his appeal. As per him, the learned Single Bench too without considering these pertinent submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, affirmed these grossly illegal orders and unjustly dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 01.02.2018, which as per Mr. Saluja is totally laconic and perverse. He, thus, implored the court to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders/judgment.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Saluja and contended that the delinquent was charged for the murder of Bhanwar Singh and that the witness Jodh Singh has given positive evidence to bring home this charge. As per him, the standard of proof required in a disciplinary enquiry cannot be equated with the standard of proof required to bring home the charge in a criminal case. He further submitted that mere acquittal of the delinquent in the corresponding criminal case cannot entitle him to seek exoneration in the disciplinary enquiry, more particularly, where the acquittal is recorded by giving benefit of doubt. He, thus, urged that the impugned judgment is perfectly justifiable and implored the court to dismiss the appeal.