Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 989 (RAJ)

Bhupendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-13

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
ORDER Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was working as a Sub-Inspector in the respondent police department in the year 1995. An enquiry was instituted against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, CCA Rules) with the allegation that he, being the Investigating Officer of the FIR No. 34/2000 registered at P.S. Bhojasar for the offences under Sections 458 and 392, IPC, did not file the charge-sheet within a period of 90 days leading to the arrested accused being released on compulsive bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied the charges and contested the same. On his reply, he tried to portray some kind of explanation for the circumstances leading to the non-filing of the charge-sheet within 90 days. The disciplinary authority being District Superintendent of Police, Rural, Jodhpur considered the petitioner’s reply and other documents etc. and came to the conclusion that the explanation furnished by the petitioner of not filing charge-sheet within 90 days was flimsy and unacceptable and passed the order dated 14.12.2001 Annex.3 holding the petitioner guilty of negligence in conducting investigation and proceeded to impose the minimum penalty of censure upon him. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 14.12.2001 which was rejected by the D.I.G. Police, Range Jodhpur by order dated 2.11.2002 Annex.5. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a review petition before Hon’ble the Governor which too was rejected by order dated 9.6.2003 Annex.7. The above three orders are challenged in the instant writ petition. 3. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. The fact that the petitioner being the I.O. in the matter did not file the charge-sheet against the arrested accused within a period of 90 days resulting into release of the arrested accused on compulsive bail under Section 167 (2), Cr.P.C. in a case of grave offences, is admitted. The explanation which the petitioner furnished is totally flimsy and farfetched. The petitioner tried to project that though he had arrested a few accused in the case but some more remained to be arrested. He tried his best to apprehend the remaining accused. The explanation which the petitioner furnished is totally flimsy and farfetched. The petitioner tried to project that though he had arrested a few accused in the case but some more remained to be arrested. He tried his best to apprehend the remaining accused. The principal accused Chandra Singh (who was released on compulsive bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.) had not moved any bail application in the Court because the Rajput community had taken a resolution that in case anybody moved a bail application on behalf of Chandra Singh, then he would be out-casted from the society. These two reasons have been taken in the reply as the justification for not filing charge-sheet in time. It is the firm opinion of this Court that the explanation submitted by the petitioner for not filing charge-sheet against the arrested accused Chandra Singh in 90 days is absolutely unconvincing, farfetched and unworthy of credence. Merely because the Rajput community had taken a resolution that the persons filing bail on behalf of Chandra Singh would be out-casted and that no bail application had been moved on behalf of the said accused, could not have given any justification to the I.O. not to file charge-sheet against the arrested accused. The other part of the explanation furnished by the petitioner that the remaining accused were to be arrested could not have been a justification for not filing the charge-sheet against the arrested accused because the charge-sheet could very well have been filed by keeping the investigation pending against the remaining accused who were yet to be arrested. 5. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was grossly negligent in not filing the charge-sheet against the arrested accused Chandra Singh within 90 days. His negligence resulted into release of the arrested accused on compulsive bail. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the minimal punishment of censure imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority was perfectly justified. The disciplinary authority has given significant reasons for holding the petitioner guilty and for imposing the said penalty upon him. The appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority, while passing the impugned orders have given due consideration to the facts and circumstances available on record as well the petitioner’s explanation and did not find it tenable and rightly so. The disciplinary authority has given significant reasons for holding the petitioner guilty and for imposing the said penalty upon him. The appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority, while passing the impugned orders have given due consideration to the facts and circumstances available on record as well the petitioner’s explanation and did not find it tenable and rightly so. This Court is of the opinion that the orders impugned ex-fade do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or irregularity so as to call for any interference in exercise of this Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 6. In view of the above discussion, the instant writ petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to cost.