Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 147 (RAJ)

Dinesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2010-01-19

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Dinesh Singh against the order of penalty dated 15.07.1991, by which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect and the order dated 10.02.1993, by which the appeal filed against the earlier order was dismissed by the appellate authority. 2. The petitioner and two other delinquents were served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958'). A joint enquiry was conducted against all the three delinquents. First charge against the petitioner was that while he was posted at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, he went to Police Chowki of Gandhi Nagar on 29.12.1990 without permission of the competent authority, and, without there being any justification, he illegally detained one Shri B.D. Kriplani and, threatened and misbehaved him. Charge No.2 against the petitioner is that he along-with Shri Dhanpal Singh, Constable, extracted a sum of Rs. 1000/- from said Shri Kriplani, thereby brought a bad name to the Police Department. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet denying charges, which is on record as Annexure-3. In reply, the petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of confusion of identity. In the preliminary enquiry, the then Additional Superintendent of Police (South), Shri P.D. Sharma, found the charges proved against the petitioner as well as Shri Rajendra Singh and Dhanpal Singh, whereas he was never associated with the enquiry nor the statements of the witnesses were recorded in his presence. He was also not given any opportunity to present his view point. Had he been given opportunity of hearing, he would have most probably persuaded the enquiry officer to take a different view. In the reply, the petitioner, however, stated that there was no allegation of extracting money from the said B.D. Kriplani as far as the petitioner is concerned and Shri Kriplani himself did not support the allegations in his statement. The petitioner denied having gone to the Police Chowki. On the contrary, it was his defence that he was on duty with Shri Umesh Bhardwaj, the Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, from 29.12.1990 at 8.10 AM to 30.01.1990 at 1.00 AM, which was proved from the statement of Shri Mahaveer Singh, Head Moharir. The petitioner denied having gone to the Police Chowki. On the contrary, it was his defence that he was on duty with Shri Umesh Bhardwaj, the Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, from 29.12.1990 at 8.10 AM to 30.01.1990 at 1.00 AM, which was proved from the statement of Shri Mahaveer Singh, Head Moharir. The enquiry officer found the charges proved against all the delinquents and submitted his report, which is on the record as Annexure-4. The disciplinary officer, by order dated 15.07.1991, awarded penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect to all the delinquents including the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur, vide his order dated 10.02.1993. This writ petition been filed at the instance of petitioner Dinesh Singh, who is one of the delinquents. 3. Shri Karanpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the enquiry officer has utterly failed to appreciate that the complainant, in his statement, categorically averred that neither the petitioner nor other two delinquents were those persons who illegally detained him or allegedly extracted money. When a specific query was put to him as to any of the three delinquents were amongst those who illegally detained him or extracted money, he replied in negative. Another query made to him as to why names of three persons were averred, he further replied that he, on the basis of some source of information, quoted the names of Shri Dhanpal Singh and Rajendra Singh in complaint, but did not name the petitioner Dinesh Singh. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that PW-5 Shri Mahaveer Singh, Head Moharir, has clearly stated that the petitioner was on duty with SHO of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, as a driver, from 29.12.1990 at 8.10 AM to 30.12.1990 at 1.00 AM, and entry to this effect was made in Rojnamcha Aam at Rapat No.1792 and 1842. Learned counsel submitted that Dhanpal Singh, in his statement, has mentioned about the presence of himself and that of Rajendra Singh at the Police Chowki and not of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that Dhanpal Singh, in his statement, has mentioned about the presence of himself and that of Rajendra Singh at the Police Chowki and not of the petitioner. He stated that when they found Shri B.P. Kriplani in the mid of the night with the working Women's Hostel, they enquired about his identity and when he disclosed that he was LDC in the Government Secretariat, they let him go. He denied that he misbehaved with him or extracted money from him. Learned counsel submitted that Dhanpal Singh did not at all name the petitioner Dinesh Singh. Referring from the findings of the enquiry officer recorded on Charge No.1, the learned counsel submitted that the enquiry officer has although in the earlier part of his finding, on the basis of the evidence, agreed that the charge against the petitioner was not proved but he further observed that in view of the finding recorded in the preliminary enquiry report, which is Exhibit P-7, conducted by another Additional Superintendent of Police, the statement of B.D. Kriplani, could not be disbelieved and that the explanation given by Shri Dhanpal Singh to the preliminary enquiry officer, corroborated the allegation against the petitioner as well. The learned counsel submitted that when the complainant himself has denied the allegation and that he has not identified the petitioner as one who was involved in the incident; there was absolutely no basis on which the petitioner could be held guilty and penalty could be awarded against him. All these arguments were raised in the appeal, which were noticed by the appellate authority, but none of them were dealt with and it was merely observed that the charges against the petitioner were proved by the enquiry report and there was no reason to disbelieve the enquiry report. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the evidence led before the enquiry officer in the regular enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, is not supporting the charges, merely because the preliminary enquiry officer has recorded a different finding, that cannot be taken as basis for sustaining the finding of guilt. The appellate authority has also not considered all these aspects of the matter. The impugned order of penalty and that of the appellate authority are thus liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. The appellate authority has also not considered all these aspects of the matter. The impugned order of penalty and that of the appellate authority are thus liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned Deputy Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the charges against the petitioner were fully proved. It is submitted that copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner could have demanded for other documents if he wanted, and the same could be provided to him. The enquiry against the delinquents was held strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. Even if the complainant himself turned hostile, the charge against the petitioner could be taken as proved from the surrounding circumstances and other facts including the statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry. If Dhanpal Singh gave written explanation during the preliminary enquiry and he resiled therefrom in the regular enquiry; the enquiry officer was fully justified in not believing his version. The learned counsel submitted that the charge of illegal detention of a citizen and then extracting money from him was of serious nature which had a very bad impact on the reputation of the police department. It is therefore, prayed that he writ petition may be dismissed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the record. 8. In the normal circumstances, this court does not interfere with the disciplinary matters on the ground of sufficiency of adequacy of evidence. If there is some evidence or material on record, which may support the finding of guilt against delinquent, this court would be loath to interfere in such matters. In the present case, the delinquent himself denied the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident. It could be said that there is some evidence against other two delinquent, namely, Dhanpal Singh and Rajendra Singh because the complainant, in his statement, stated that he gave their names on the basis of source of information but he has not named the petitioner Dinesh Singh. When pointedly asked whether any of the delinquents were present before the enquiry officer out of those who were involved in the incident, he categorically denied. When pointedly asked whether any of the delinquents were present before the enquiry officer out of those who were involved in the incident, he categorically denied. The evidence about the fact that the petitioner was discharging his duties as Driver with the SHO of the Police Station and the entry to this effect was made in Rojnamcha Aam at Rapat No.1792 and 1842, has not been objectively considered either by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority. While the enquiry officer, who was an Additional S.P., has acknowledged the weight of this evidence by observing that the charge against the petitioner cannot be taken as proved on the basis of this material but he found himself in the dilemma because another Additional SP, who was preliminary enquiry officer, had given a preliminary enquiry report and submitted the same to the Superintendent of Police, therefore, he observed that there was no justification not to believe the finding recorded in that preliminary enquiry report. In my considered view, the enquiry officer has acted illegally in believing the preliminary enquiry report over the weight of evidence which was recorded before the enquiry officer himself. Not only that, he believed the written explanation of Dhanpal Singh, which he had given to the preliminary enquiry officer as against the oral statement given by Dhanpal Singh in the disciplinary enquiry. Dhanpal Singh, in his statement has not named the petitioner as one who was present at the Police Chowki. He rather mentioned as to the presence of himself and Rajendra Singh. All these arguments were raised by the petitioner before the disciplinary as well as appellate authority in detail. While the disciplinary authority in his order has not at all discussed any evidence and had taken undue influence from the preliminary enquiry report; the appellate authority having noticed all these arguments, has not given any finding about them and hurriedly concluded the order by dismissing the appeal. 9. In my considered view, this matter is of such nature where there was absolutely no evidence against the petitioner. In other word, it is a case of no evidence and that evidence that was adduced was such where no reasonable person of ordinary prudence could reach to the conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner. I, therefore, find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. In other word, it is a case of no evidence and that evidence that was adduced was such where no reasonable person of ordinary prudence could reach to the conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner. I, therefore, find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. In my view, both the orders are, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside and, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. In the result of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.07.1991 and 10.02.1993 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits with full salary during the suspension period. 11. Compliance of this judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******