Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2026 (RAJ)

Manudev v. State of Rajasthan

2010-12-07

GOVIND MATHUR

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, a Constable with Rajasthan Police was served with a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' hereinafter), with an allegation that he purchased stolen properties i.e. Jeep No.RJ-09-C-1157 and Motor Cycle No.RJ-02-0747 and sold those further. An FIR No.160/2004 was also registered for the said offence and he was arrested during the investigation of the case aforesaid, as such, he tarnished the image of the Police Department. 2. The petitioner denied the allegations, thus, a regular enquiry was initiated and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (SC/ST) Cell, Chittorgarh was appointed as the enquiry officer. 2 The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty for all the charges under the enquiry report dated 19.6.2006 and the same along with the record of enquiry was forwarded for proper action to the disciplinary authority. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner seeking his comments and in response thereto, a detailed representation was submitted by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 30.11.2006/1.12.2006 while agreeing with the findings given by the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty for the allegation of misconduct and removed him from service. 3. An appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur under an order dated 7.5.2007. 4. A review petition submitted to His Excellency, the Governor was also rejected under an order dated 13.7.2009, hence, this petition for writ is preferred. 5. It is relevant to note here that the allegations for which petitioner was subjected to disciplinary action were also adjudicated by the Judicial Magistrate (1st class), Mandsor (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.43/2004 and in that he was acquitted as the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond doubt. 6. While challenging the order passed by the disciplinary 3 authority, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958, the disciplinary authority is require to give definite finding against each charge by considering the entire evidence, as such, the disciplinary authority is under obligation to discuss the entire evidence available on record including the version of delinquent employee and then finding is require to be given with the reasons. In the instant matter no such reasons are prescribed by the disciplinary authority. In the instant matter no such reasons are prescribed by the disciplinary authority. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority has also not taken into consideration the explanation given by the petitioner after receiving a copy of the enquiry report. 7. Per contra, as per respondents, the petitioner was found guilty of a serious misconduct after holding a regular disciplinary proceedings, as such, no interference of this Court is warranted while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that adequate reasons are given by the disciplinary authority, though in brief. 8. Having considered the arguments advanced and on examination of record, it reveals that the petitioner was subjected to the enquiry and entire record of enquiry was forwarded to the disciplinary authority, but the disciplinary authority while passing the order impugned has not discussed the evidence and has failed to support its finding by reasons. 9. Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 prescribes that "the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its finding on each charge." The term consideration of record of the enquiry warrants that the disciplinary authority must examine entire evidence and must give reasons for the findings arrived. In the instant matter, the sole discussion made by the disciplinary authority reads as under:- " tkap ls fuEu vkjksi izekf.kr gSA vipkjh deZpkjh ds fo:) vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa fnukad 10-3-2004 dks fxjQ~rkjh gksdj lwpuk ij thi tIr gqbZ o bUgsa fnukad 10-3-2004 ls tekur gksus rd U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa j[kk x;k o fnukad 19-4-2004 dks pktZ'khV ua0 160@04 drkZ dh tkdj pkyku U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA O;fDrxr lquokbZ o tkap ls ;g Li"V gS fd Jh tkfdj dh tku igpku M~;wVh ds nkSjku vfHk;qDr ds :i esa vkjksih ls gqbZ FkhA vkjksih tkfdj dks vfHk;qDr ds :i esa tkurk FkkA blds mijkUr Hkh mlds }kjk crkbZ ckrksa ij fo'okl fd;k ftlls vijk/k dh bye Li"V gSA blls iqfyldekZ ds :i esa vf/kfu;e esa of.kZr drZO;ksa ls fHkUu vijk/k dj Nfo [kjkc dh gSA ,d xaHkhj nqjkpj.k gS ftldks foHkkx esa lsok esa j[kuk mfpr ugha gSA vr% mlds tokc o O;fDrxr lquokbZ ds rF; mlds vkpjk dks Li"V djrs gSa u fd mlds cpko esa dksbZ Bksl urhtk izLrqr djrs gksA lsok esa i'Fkd djus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA " 10. From reading of the relevant portion of the order impugned as quoted above, it is apparent that the disciplinary authority narrated certain facts, but has not discussed the evidence available. It is well settled that the reasons carries objectivity in taking an action and non-availability of the same substantiates non-application of mind. The reasons are all the more necessary when the disciplinary authority has sought explanation from the delinquent after supply of the enquiry report as held by this Court in the case of S.L. Gupta v. Life Insurance Corporation and Anr., reported in 2005(4) RDD 861. In the case aforesaid, this Court held as under:- "In a quasi judicial inquiry if the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is being available to the disciplinary authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion rules of natural justice would be affected. In view of this position of law the inquiry report wherein an employee is found guilty, is adverse material to the delinquent employee. In the present case also the inquiry report along with the notice to show cause was given to the petitioner as an adverse material and the petitioner was required to meet the same by submitting a reply. In view of this position of law the inquiry report wherein an employee is found guilty, is adverse material to the delinquent employee. In the present case also the inquiry report along with the notice to show cause was given to the petitioner as an adverse material and the petitioner was required to meet the same by submitting a reply. The petitioner submitted a reply to the disciplinary authority and raised various objections with regard to denial of opportunity of defence and also with regard to the findings of the Inquiry Officer. As I stated above that in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (Supra) the inquiry report is an adverse material. Therefore, the agreements to the findings by the disciplinary authority was tentative. The disciplinary authority after receiving the order and comments by the delinquent employee is always required to reach at its own findings and Conclusions. The disciplinary authority is under an obligation to deal with the objections raised by the employee and he is required to prescribe findings and conclusions supported by the reasons. In a case where a copy of the inquiry report is supplied to a delinquent employee with a notice to show-cause with regard to proposed punishment, the principle laid-down in the case of Ram Kumar's case (Supra) cannot be applied. These are not the case of agreement with the findings of Inquiry Officer but in these cases the inquiry report itself has been treated as an adverse material, as such it is all the more necessary for the disciplinary authority to record reasons in support of his findings and conclusions." 11. As already stated above, in this case neither the evidence is discussed nor the reasons are given by the disciplinary authority in support of the findings, thus, this petition deserves acceptance. 12. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 30.11.2006/1.12.2006 is declared illegal and same is quashed. The subsequent orders passed by 7 the appellate authority and reviewing authority too stand quashed as the original order passed by the disciplinary authority has been declared bad. The petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 30.11.2006/1.12.2006 is declared illegal and same is quashed. The subsequent orders passed by 7 the appellate authority and reviewing authority too stand quashed as the original order passed by the disciplinary authority has been declared bad. The petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. The disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to pass an order afresh in accordance with law by reconsidering the entire record of enquiry including the fact relating to acquittal in criminal case.Petition Allowed. *******