JUDGMENT 1. - On a representation having been given by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur with the request to consider his case sympathetically so as to allow him to join his duties which were dispensed with on 24.03.1992, on an acquittal having been awarded to him by criminal court vide order dated 14.12.1995 and the same having been rejected on 23.03.1996 (Annexure-9) that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the request that the orders dated 24.03.1992 and 04.09.1992 be quashed and set aside. Further, he has prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Constable, vide order dated 12.09.1987, under special recruitment on the ground of getting the dacoit arrested who was an accused in a case of bank robbery. It was only on account of the efforts made by the petitioner that the said accused persons could be arrested. Therefore, the petitioner was rewarded for his deeds by being appointed on the said post. The petitioner was initially posted at Police Lines, Bharatpur where he continued to work till his services were dispensed with. The petitioner was subsequently implicated in a criminal case on the allegation that while he was on duty at Kama Animal Fair (Pashu Mela), in the night intervening 11th-12th June, 1989, at about 2.00 am, that he was found unlocking a trunk of one Shri Digvijay Singh, Constable No.1148. Another constable Shri Dhirendra Kumar is said to have woke up at that time and had seen the petitioner. Thereafter, he had informed Virendra Singh, Constable No.319 who was also sleeping there. On lodging of the report, a First Information Report (No.437/1989) was registered for the offences under Sections 379 and 511 IPC. The investigation commenced and challan came to be filed in the court of concerning Magistrate. The petitioner was then arrested in the criminal case. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was acquitted on 14.12.1995 (Annexure-1). 3. On account of the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner was ordered to be placed under suspension, in exercise of the powers under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, vide order dated 20.07.1989. However, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 19.02.1990. But again the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.03.1990. 3. On account of the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner was ordered to be placed under suspension, in exercise of the powers under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, vide order dated 20.07.1989. However, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 19.02.1990. But again the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.03.1990. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, along with statement of allegations, by Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur on 03.10.1989 for initiation of departmental proceedings (Annexure-3). The petitioner had then filed an application on 13.12.1989 for obtaining copies of the statement of the witnesses and relevant documents so as to enable him to prepare his reply/defence (Annexure-4). But the petitioner was neither allowed to inspect the record nor the copies of the desired documents were supplied to him. Thereafter on 29.03.1990, the petitioner filed an application to summon witnesses, namely Shri Yadav Singh, Safi Mohammed, Shiv Dutt, Kamla Devi and Hari Ram Meena so as to cross-examine them. Again his request was not acceded to by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer concluded the enquiry and held that petitioner was guilty of all the charges. The report was submitted before the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Bhratpur. 4. The disciplinary authority had subsequently issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the notice on 02.07.1990, raising objection regarding jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police as under Rule 12 of CCA Rules, the appointing authority in respect to constable was the Head of the Department i.e. the Director General of Police. The petitioner had also alleged malafide against one Dhirendra Kumar who was enmical to him and the entire case was initiated at his behest. The Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, vide his order dated 20.07.1991, remanded the matter to the enquiry officer for holding the enquiry afresh, after calling the witnesses. 5. The enquiry officer had again concluded the enquiry and submitted a report to Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges (Annexure-5).The respondent No.4 again gave a show cause notice to the petitioner under Rule 16 (10)(i)(ka) of the CCA Rules as to why he may not be dismissed from service. The petitioner had submitted his reply/explanation. The Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, respondent No.4 had on 24.03.1992 awarded punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner had submitted his reply/explanation. The Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, respondent No.4 had on 24.03.1992 awarded punishment of dismissal from service. Further, he had ordered that the remaining salary of suspension period of the petitioner shall be forfeited. 6. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 24.03.1992, the petitioner preferred an appeal, under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, before the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur submitting that without there being any evidence or material on record or substance in the allegations, the charge-sheet was issued and he had been prosecuted. The petitioner had further averred that the punishment awarded to him is in violation of the principle of natural justice and also without jurisdiction. The appellate authority however dismissed the appeal on 04.09.1992, upholding the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner had then filed a review petition, on 28.12.1993, under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules and the same remained pending till filing of the writ petition. 7. On acquittal having been awarded in the criminal case on 14.12.1995, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur with the request that the matter be re-examined and he may be reinstated in service because he had been dismissed on the ground of criminal case and the allegations based on it (Annexure-8). But the Superintendent of Police declined the request made by the petitioner and thereby rejected his representation on 23.03.1996 (Annexure-9). Hence, the present writ petition had been filed by the petitioner on 04.06.1997, seeking to challenge the aforesaid orders and action of the respondents. 8. The case of the petitioner, revealed from the material on record, is that as a reward for the act of getting the accused in the bank dacoity case arrested, he was appointed on the post of constable on 12.09.1987, under the special recruitment quota. Thereafter, he joined the service and continued till passing of the impugned order of dismissal. Further, his case is that on account of enemity with Dhirendra Kumar, another constable, the story with regard to committing of theft in the night intervening 11th-12th June, 1989 was concocted and the petitioner was falsely roped in the criminal case. Whereas the fact is that the owner of the trunk, namely Digvijay Singh, had categorically stated that none of the articles lying in his trunk were stolen or missing. Whereas the fact is that the owner of the trunk, namely Digvijay Singh, had categorically stated that none of the articles lying in his trunk were stolen or missing. He had also stated that the trunk was locked by him and on his return, it was found in the same condition. The case of the petitioner is that he was suspended on 20.07.1989 and the said order was revoked on 19.02.1990. But he was again put under suspension on 14.03.1990. According to the petitioner, he was not at all knowing about the incident of 12.06.1989 and it was only on 13.06.1989 when he had gone to the Police Line, Bharatpur to receive the due amount of his bonus that the R.I. had asked him to sit in the guard room and thereby he was arrested in the criminal case. Further, the case of the petitioner is that there had been violation of principle of natural justice, so much so that he was neither allowed to inspect the record nor the copies of the documents were supplied to him, despite of a representation having been given on 13.12.1989. He had also raised the question of jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police on the ground that since the appointing authority in respect of the post of constable is the Head of the Department i.e. the Director General of Police, as defined under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules, which may be sub-delegated but the power of awarding a major punishment as provided under Clause 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of CCA Rules, cannot be so done. The grievance of the petitioner is also that the impugned orders have been passed in total ignorance of the defence given by him. Apart from dismissal from service there had been forfeiture of remaining salary of his suspension period which was totally illegal. The appellate authority, according to the petitioner, had also not considered the matter in legal perspective. Moreover, the order passed by the appellate authority was not a speaking order as it had not independently looked into the material on record so as to come to its own conclusion in the case. The representation submitted to the Superintendent of Police, after being awarded acquittal in the criminal case on 14.12.1995, for re-examining the matter and to reinstate the petitioner in service was also rejected in a summary manner on 23.03.1996. 9. The representation submitted to the Superintendent of Police, after being awarded acquittal in the criminal case on 14.12.1995, for re-examining the matter and to reinstate the petitioner in service was also rejected in a summary manner on 23.03.1996. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority on 24.03.1992 and 04.09.1992 respectively are in accordance to law which calls for no interference by this Court. Further, he has submitted that the case of the respondents was well proved from the evidence on record which was produced during the departmental proceedings. It has also been submitted that the dismissal from service of the petitioner was made in the year 1992 whereas the instant writ petition has been filed in the year 1998, and therefore it suffers from delay and latches. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the charges against the petitioner were of serious nature and retaining him in service, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would have tarnished the image of the department and as such his dismissal was just and proper. 10. On having considered the facts and circumstances as well as the material on record, it is revealed that the entire case of the respondents revolves around the incident which is said to have taken place at about 2.00 am., in the night intervening 11th-12th June, 1989. It is also an indisputed fact that the allegations against the petitioner were only with regard to attempt to commit theft, by breaking the lock of the trunk of Digvijay Singh (Constable No.1148). One Dhirendra Singh is said to have noticed, first in time, about the incident and he had informed another constable, namely Virendra Singh. Thereafter, a report was got lodged through Digvijay Singh on 15.06.1989, as a result of which the First Information Report (437/1989) was registered for the offences under Sections 379, 511 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, a challan was filed against the petitioner before the concerning Magistrate. Thereafter, the trial in the case had proceeded in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Bharatpur. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner, vide judgment dated 14.12.1995, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. 11. Thereafter, the trial in the case had proceeded in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Bharatpur. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner, vide judgment dated 14.12.1995, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. 11. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held as under:- " ih0M0 1 vius eq[; ijh{kk esa tkfgj fd;k gS fd mls/khjsUnz dqekj ik.Ms us ;g crk;k Fkk fd eqfYte mldk V~d [kksydj diM+s mFky jgk FkkA ;g egRoiw.kZ gS fd xokg us tc V~ad dks ns[kk rks V~ad esa rkyk yxk ik;kA rFkk ;g ik;k fd V~ad esa ls dqN Hkh pksjh ugha gqvk FkkA ftjg esa bl xokg us vkSj Li"V djrs gq, dgk fd tSlh fLFkfr esa cDls dks M~;wVh ij tkrs le; og NksM+ x;k Fkk mlh voLFkk esa cDlk feyk Fkk rFkk rkyk can Hkk tks mlds tkus ds ckn pkch ls [kksydj ns[kk FkkA " As regard to the prosecution witnesses Ramkhiladi (PW-3), the learned trial court held that it is clear from his statement that he had not seen the accused making an attempt to commit theft.Similarly, it had observed thus:- " ;g egRoiw.kZ gS fd V~ad ds Lokeh fnfXot; us vius c;kuksa esa Li"V :i ls dgk fd V~ad mlh voLFkk esa Fkk rFkk pkch mlds ikl Fkh ftls [kksyus ij mlus ik;k fd lkeku mlh voLFkk esa Fkk ftl voLFkk esa og NksM+ x;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr/khjsUnz us Hkh vius c;kuksa esa dgha Hkh ;g ugha dgk fd eqyfte us rkyk rksM+k gks ;k eqfYte ds }kjk Qsyk;k gqvk lkeku mlus lEHkkaydj j[kk gks ;k fd mlus cDls dk rkyk ugha yxk;k gksA " It also held that the statement of Roop Singh (PW-4) is not reliable. Ultimately, the learned trial court concluded as follows:- " vr% mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa V~ad dk Lokeh fnxfot; fd lk{; ls rFkk vU; vfHk;kstu }kjk is'k fd, x, xokgku dh lk{; ls o vuqla/kkudrkZ ds vHkko esa vfHk;kstu i{k eqyfte ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k dks fl) djus esa vlQy jgk gSA ifj.kkeLo:i vfHk;qDr fo".kq vkjksfir vijk/k ls nks"keqDr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA " 12. In the departmental proceeding held against the petitioner, a charge-sheet was issued and despite of the request that the copies of the documents be provided so as to enable him to file a detailed reply and to prepare the defence, the same were neither given nor was allowed to inspect the same. Initially, the enquiry officer submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. When the petitioner submitted explanation on 02.07.1990, in reply to the show cause notice issued to him as to why he should not be dismissed from service, raising the question of jurisdiction etc., that the Superintendent of Police remanded the matter to the enquiry officer on 20.07.1991, for holding the enquiry afresh. The enquiry officer had hastily concluded the proceedings on 25.11.1991 and again held the accused guilty of all the charges. The report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority had immediately passed an order on 24.03.1992 dismissing the petitioner from service and had also forfeited his remaining salary of the period of suspension. On an appeal having been filed under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, the appellate authority dismissed the same on 04.09.1992, upholding the order of disciplinary authority. The review petition filed by the petitioner did not get any response from the respondents, much less to say anything favourable. Even when the petitioner filed a representation on 21.12.1995, immediately after the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the criminal court on 14.12.1995, the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur rejected the same on 23.03.1996. A perusal of the said order indicates that he did not take into consideration the subsequent developments nor he had considered the judgment passed in the criminal case, after a detailed discussion, that no case against the petitioner was proved. The Superintendent of Police had rather rejected the representation of the petitioner in a summary manner. 13. A perusal of the said order indicates that he did not take into consideration the subsequent developments nor he had considered the judgment passed in the criminal case, after a detailed discussion, that no case against the petitioner was proved. The Superintendent of Police had rather rejected the representation of the petitioner in a summary manner. 13. A perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer as well as the orders passed by the disciplinary authority goes to show that the very basis of the allegation against the petitioner of committing the offence/misconduct on 13.06.1989, by trying to unlock the trunk of Digvijay Singh, was not at all established so much so that the owner of the trunk had categorically stated in the disciplinary proceedings also, as follows:-Further, he stated as under:- " fnukad 13-06-89 dks iqfyl ykbu Hkjriqj esa vk;k rks Jh xtjktflag vkj0,l0vkbZ0 us crk;k fd rqeus viuk cDlk [kksydj ns[kk Fkk D;k\ eSaus viuk cDlk [kksydj ns[kk ogka jkef[kykM+h o/khjsUnz dqekj fjd:V :iflag dkfu0 ekStwn Fks/khjsUnz us crk;k fd eSa 2] <+kbZ cts djhc fo".kq dqekj vkids cDls dks [kksydj VVksy jgk Fkk vki vius iSls dks ns[kyks fQj eSaus vius iSls ns[ks ekStwn Fks fQj eSaus dgk D;k ckr gqbZ rc/khjsUnz us crk;k fd eSa ckgj lks jgk Fkk vkids cDls fd [kj[kjkgV lqu cSfjd esa vk;k ogka fo".kq dqekj vkids cDls dks VVksy jgk FkkA " Further, he stated as under: " eq>s vkns'k fn;k fd dksrokyh tkdj fjiksVZ fy[kkvksaA eSaus ykbu ds vQljksa ls fuosnu fd;k mlesa nks fnu chr x;sA mlds ckn dksrokyh ij fjiksVZ fy[kdj ns nhA ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ntZ gqbZ ml ij , ls ch esjs nLr[kr gSaA esjs dksrokyh ij c;ku ugha fy,A " 14. On careful consideration of the material on record, including the evidence which has come during the course of departmental proceedings and the order of acquittal passed by the criminal court on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution, it is clearly revealed that the allegation in respect of attempt to commit theft by unlocking the trunk of Digvijay Singh is not proved against the petitioner. As mentioned earlier, all the charges levelled against the petitioner were in respect of the incident of 13.06.1989 and when the same is found not to have been proved then the other allegations, which were connected with it and constitute part of the same series of events, are also not established. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority in respect of the allegations levelled against the petitioner is without any legal evidence on record and cannot be sustained. The very fact that the owner of the trunk Digvijay Singh has categorically stated that he had locked the trunk before leaving and found it in the same condition on his return, clearly goes to show that no incident had ever taken place, much less to say by the petitioner to commit theft. In such circumstances, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner is wholly unjustified and without any basis. It was definitely disproportionate even if it is to be held that the petitioner remained absent on account of his custody in the criminal case. 15. Besides, as regard the question of delay in filing of the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that the objection raised by the respondents cannot be carried through. After conclusion of the departmental proceedings, the criminal court had concluded the trial, resulting in acquittal of the petitioner in the month of December, 1995. Subsequent to it the petitioner moved a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur for reconsideration of the whole matter. The said representation was considered and dismissed by the disciplinary authority on 23.03.1996. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also filed a review petition under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules on 28.12.1993 and the same still remained pending. The petitioner had ultimately filed the present writ petition on 04.06.1997. Therefore,in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the subsequent development with regard to the criminal case and that the review petition has not been decided so far, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the filing of the writ petition is after an inordinate delay so as to dis-entitle the petitioner to seek redress of his grievances from this Court, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution of India. 16. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the writ petition has to succeed and it is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 24.03.1992 and 04.09.1992 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, except salary for the period from 24.03.1992 till the passing of this order.The exercise for compliance of this order shall be done within a period of two months, from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner be also informed about the passing of this order.Writ Petition Allowed. *******