Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1791 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal S/o Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2017-08-10

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : 1. The petitioner has challenged his dismissal from service passed vide order dated 21.01.1999 and the Appellate Order dated 19.05.1999 and the order passed in review petition dated 23.10.2000 whereby the order of dismissal was upheld by the governor. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had put in more than 15 years of service, charge levelled against the petitioner was that while he was posted in the night intervening on 26/27.04.1998, he stopped one Smt. Maina Devi who was going on the road while he was in intoxicated condition and misbehaved with her and also beaten her and entered into quarrel with her whereupon the public intervened and on the basis therefor FIR for offence under Section 341, 323 and 34 Police Act were also registered against him. In this manner, he had exceeded his position as a Policeman and brought the Police Department to disrepute and had committed misconduct. Enquiry was conducted wherein, learned counsel states that the prosecutrix did not support, the version of the prosecution and only stated that the petitioner had stopped her and had also touched her sari upon which she called her husband and thereafter the passers by gave beating to the constable and brought him to the police station. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has wrongfully been made victim of circumstances. It is submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent Trial Court & discharged for the offence levelled by Smt. Maina Devi and the matter has also been compounded. Even before the departmental enquiry, both the Maina Devi and her husband Onkar Singh categorically stated that the petitioner did not abuse his wife nor had beaten his wife. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has wrongfully held the petitioner guilty of charges, on basis of wrongful assumption and presumption that the petitioner had got the compromise by threatening the prosecutrix. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is excessive and does not commensurate with the gravity of charge which has not been proved but is solely based on presumption. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order which has been passed. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is excessive and does not commensurate with the gravity of charge which has not been proved but is solely based on presumption. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order which has been passed. It is pointed out that the case of the petitioner was thoroughly examined both at the level of appeal as well as in review and both the Appellate Authority as well as Hon’ble Governor have reached to a finding that the action of the petitioner of waylaying the lady in the night by the constable who was on duty is sufficient for imposing the maximum penalty under Rules of 1958. During the course of departmental enquiry, the probative value of evidence is having a different yardstick and sufficient evidence was on record to hold the petitioner guilty all the allegations which had seriously tarnished image of Police. 5. I have considered the submissions and find that fair opportunity was provided to the petitioner in the enquiry and no reasons exists to interfere with the orders. The husband has clearly deposed that the petitioner attempted to waylay the petitioner and also touched her sari. It is also stated that the petitioner was in an inebriated condition. 6. Such Constables who misuse their power to threaten the citizens for extraneous purposes and consideration, act worse than criminals. If the protector becomes a predator, no leniency or sympathy can be extended. Converting punishment or dismissal to any other punishment would send wrong singal. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.