Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2243 (RAJ)

Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan.

2013-12-11

AMITAVA ROY, P.K.LOHRA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the review applicant. 2. JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the review applicant. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the present adjudication are that the appellant-writ-petitioner while serving as Constable (Driver) in the State Police department was served with a memorandum of charges initiating proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the CCA Rules") levelling the following charges:- " dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk izrkix<+ ( jkt0 )" dzekad %& o&13 () izrki@vi@MhbZ@2009@1557 fnukad %& 27-2-2009 vkjksi i= fu;e 16 jktLFkku flfoy lsok ( oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k vkSj vihy ) fu;e 1958 fo:) Jh leqUnzflag M~k0 dkfu0 824 fu;qDr Fkkuk nsox<+ gky iqfyl ykbZu izrkix<+A ;g fd vkidh fu;qfDr o"kZ 2009 esa M~k0 dkfu0 ds in ij Fkkuk nsox<+ ij FkhA 1- ;g fd vki fnukad 18-02-2009 dks Fkkuk nsox<+ ls izdj.k la[;k 15@09/kkjk 143] 341] 323] 325] 452 Hkk0na0la0 esa fxjQ~rkj'kqnk eqfYte dk tslh0 fjek.M Lohd`r djkus gsrq Fkkus ls ljdkjh thi ua0 vkj0ts0&09lh&4326 e; Jh Hkksiky flag gSM dkfu0 ua0 52] dkfu0 iq[kjkt ua0 171] jkstukepk Fkkuk nsox<+ ds jiV la[;k 517 le; 1-00 ih0,e0 ij jokuk gks U;k;ky; ifjlj izrkix<+ igqap gSM dkfu0 o dkfu0 rFkk eqfYteku dks NksM+dj vius bapktZ dks fcuk crk;s ljdkjh okgu ysdj pys x;sA 2- ;g fd vkids bapktZ }kjk vkids pys tkus ds ckn vkids eksckbZy Qksu ls lEidZ fd;k x;k rks vkids eksckbZy Qksu ls lEidZ ugha gqvk ftlls bapktZ gSM dkfu0 e; tkIrk vU; lk/ku ls Fkkus ij igqaps ,oa bapktZ }kjk jkstukepk vke Fkkuk nsox<+ ij okilh jiV la[;k 520 le; 5-30 ih0,e0 ij vkidh xSj gkftjh ntZ dh xbZA 3- ;g fd fnukad 18-02-2008 dks vki }kjk bapktZ Jh Hkksiky flag gSM dkfu0 ua0 52 o tkIrk iqfyl ,oa eqfYteku dks U;k;ky; ifjlj esa NksM+dj bapktZ dks fcuk crk;s ljdkjh okgu vkj0ts0&09lh&4326 dks pkSdh lqjtiksy izrkix<+ ls vkxs 'kjkc dh nqdku ds ihNs ys tkdj [kkyh IykV esa [kM+h dj ljdkjh okgu ds vUnj cSBdj onhZ esa 'kjkc dk lsou fd;k x;k rFkk vR;f/kd 'kjkc ihus ls okgu pykus dh fLFkfr esa ugha gksus ls vkxs okyh lhV ij vk/kk ysV x;sA ftlls LFkkuh; lekpkj laoknnkrk dks vkids ljdkjh okgu esa 'kjkc ihdj vk/kk ysVs gq;s ds QksVks ysus dk ekSdk feyk o fnukad 19-02-2009 dks jktLFkku if=dk esa vkids QksVks lfgr [kcj izdkf'kr gqbZA 4- ;g fd fnukad 18-02-2009 dks vkids }kjk lkoZtfud LFkku ij ljdkjh okgu dks [kM+k dj mlesa cSBdj 'kjkc dk lsou djus dh lwpuk Fkkukf/kdkjh izrkix<+ dks feyus ij Fkkukf/kdkjh izrkix<+ }kjk vkidk u'ks 'kjkc dk esfMdy eqvk;uk esfMdy T;qfj"V ftyk fpfdRlky; izrkix<+ ls djk;k x;k rks esfMdy T;wfj"V us vkidk u'ks 'kjkc esa gksuk viuh fjiksVZ esa vafdr fd;kA 5- ;g fd fnukad 18-02-2009 dks vki }kjk vius bapktZ dks fcuk crk;s ljdkjh okgu dks ysdj 'kjkc dh nqdku ij x;s o ljdkjh okgu dk nq:i;ksx fd;k x;kA vkidk mDr d`R; vuq'kklughurk] drZO; ds izfr ykijokgh] iqfyl Nfo dks/kwfey djus okyk gksdj foHkkxh; fu;eksa ds vUrxZr n.Muh; gSA ,l0Mh0 iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk izrkix<+ ( jkt0 )"The appellant-writ-petitioner participated in the enquiry that followed. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges were found proved against him. The appointing authority concurring with the said finding imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Eventually, he turned to this Court for redress by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3231/2011. The learned single Judge negated the challenge, where after, he preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 792/2011, which by judgment and order dated 29.6.2011 was also dismissed. 3. As the judgment and order dated 29-6-2011 sought to be reviewed instantly would reveal, it was pointed out on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner that the charges levelled against him (appellant-writ-petitioner) had not been fully proved and that even assuming it was so, the penalty of dismissal from service was unwarranted. It was argued as well that in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority had wrongly taken note of his past conduct which was impermissible in law. 4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal rejected all these contentions on a detailed consideration of all relevant aspects factual and legal. It was recorded inter alia that in the light of the statement of the appellant-writ-petitioner himself one could come to the conclusion that he had consumed liquor on the date of incident while on duty and that no further evidence was necessary to prove the charges levelled against him. It was noted as well that the evidence of the doctor also proved that he had consumed liquor. The Co-ordinate Bench therefore returned a categorical finding that the charges levelled against the appellant-writ-petitioner had stood proved. vis-a-vis the plea that his past conduct could not have been taken into consideration for determining the penalty, the Co-ordinate Bench held that even dehors the same, the misconduct proved against him on the charges levelled was adequate enough to warrant his dismissal from service, more particularly in view of the fact that he at all relevant times was a member of the disciplined force. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Sharma has emphatically argued that as in no view of the matter, the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority could have taken note of the past conduct of the appellant-writ-petitioner without affording an opportunity to him, the same could not have been taken note of in determining the penalty and thus, the impugned judgment and order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting re-call and/or reconsideration thereof. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the review-applicant and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are of the unhesitant opinion that not only the plea is untenable on the face of it; it by no means constitutes a ground for review. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having dealt with all factual and legal aspects and recorded categorical finding vis-a-vis the charges proved against the appellant-writ petitioner, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to entertain the instant petition. More importantly, as adverted to herein above, the Co-ordinate Bench did in fact deal with the contention now raised and rejected the same on merits. We are in respectful agreement with the conclusions recorded. 7. The review petition, in our comprehension, lacks in merit and is therefore dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******