BHANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order having been passed on 17.10.1997 in review petition upholding the order of punishment dated 29.7.1995 and the order by which he was punished with stoppage of five grade increments with cumulative effect in a case registered under Section 409 IPC against the petitioner relating to the same incident, the petitioner has been acquitted and the evidence which has come on record before the Court hearing the criminal case, shows that the petitioner was not having the charge of the said revolver and, therefore, this Court ought to take into consideration the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case and the punishment of stoppage of five grade increments with cumulative effect ought to be set aside.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the aforesaid proposition and submits that the departmental enquiry is an independent proceeding where the charges levelled are also different in nature while in the criminal case, the concerned competent Court was examining whether the petitioner has committed offence under Section 409 IPC. The evidence which has been read in the criminal case cannot be taken into consideration to oust the evidence recorded during departmental proceedings. Learned Counsel further submits that there is an admission on the part of the accused petitioner in departmental proceedings of having taken over the charge of the said revolver.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsels at length and find that the order dated 16.02.1995 by which the petitioner has been punished with stoppage of five grade increments with cumulative effect has been passed on the basis of the two charges levelled against the petitioner; the first charge levelled against the petitioner was that while he was posted as Head Constable of the Kot and had taken over the charge on 11.9.1991, one revolver Webley and Scott 38 Bore No.50215 was under his charge was not found in the Kot. Subsequently the petitioner himself had informed the Superintendent information relating to the said missing of the arm. The second charge levelled was that a case has been registered against him under Section 380 IPC and under Section 7 and 8/25 of the Arms Act.