Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 175 (RAJ)

Lalit Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-21

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, SABINA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Vide this judgment, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of. 2. Appellant has filed these two appeals challenging order dated 06.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby two writ petitions filed by the appellant (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2457/2004 challenging his termination from service order dated 16.02.2002 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3543/1998 seeking regularisation of his services on the post of Computer Operator), were dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant. Allegation against the appellant was that he was involved in a criminal case and had remained absent from duty. However, the appellant had been acquitted in the criminal case by the trial court vide order dated 11.12.2001. Service of summons had not been affected on the appellant with regard to the enquiry proceedings. Hence, appellant was liable to be reinstated in service. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeals. 5. Appellant was working as a Computer Operator with the respondents. On 14.05.1999, FIR was registered against the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Appellant was arrested on 31.05.1999 and was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.06.1999, as he had remained in police custody for more than 48 hours. Appellant remained in judicial custody up to 11.08.1999 and after his release on bail, he reported for duty on 13.08.1999 before the District Informatics Officer, Bharatpur and thereafter on 16.08.1999 before the District Collector, Bharatpur. 6. Appellant was served with a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Charge No. 1 levelled against the appellant was that he was involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and had remained in police custody for more than 48 hours. Second charge levelled against the appellant was that he had remained absent from duty from 03.05.1999 to 30.05.1999 and was arrested by the police on 31.05.1999. 7. Hence, appellant had remained absent from duty and had failed to disclose to the department that he had been arrested in a criminal case. 8. Appellant was summoned by the enquiry officer, but he did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and ex-parte enquiry was conducted. 7. Hence, appellant had remained absent from duty and had failed to disclose to the department that he had been arrested in a criminal case. 8. Appellant was summoned by the enquiry officer, but he did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and ex-parte enquiry was conducted. Appellant later appeared before the disciplinary authority and submitted his defence. He also submitted his reply to the enquiry report, which was considered by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority. After conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, appellant was ordered to be removed from service vide order dated 16.02.2002. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2002. 9. Learned Single Judge had rightly held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice as the appellant had failed to initially join the enquiry proceedings despite having knowledge of the pendency of the enquiry proceedings against him. The plea taken by the appellant that he could not participate in the enquiry proceedings as summons sent to him depicted his incorrect designation, is liable to be rejected. Rather, it shows that appellant had due knowledge that enquiry proceedings were pending against him. Merely because designation of the appellant had been incorrectly mentioned on the summons would not mean that he had not been served by the enquiry officer. Apparently, summons had the correct name and address of the appellant. During the enquiry proceedings, witnesses were examined and the enquiry officer after going through the evidence on record held that the charges levelled against the appellant were duly proved. 10. It is the case of the appellant that he was acquitted in the criminal case by the trial court vide order dated 11.12.2001. Allegation in the criminal case against the appellant was that he had enticed daughter of the sister of his wife, who was aged about 21 years. Appellant had remained absent from duty with effect from 03.05.1999. Appellant was arrested in the criminal case on 31.05.1999 and remained in custody up to 13.08.1999. The fact that the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case ipso facto does not entitle the appellant for reinstatement in service because in the disciplinary proceedings, charges levelled against the appellant were duly proved on the basis of evidence led before the enquiry officer. Moreover, the appellant had also remained absent from duty. The fact that the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case ipso facto does not entitle the appellant for reinstatement in service because in the disciplinary proceedings, charges levelled against the appellant were duly proved on the basis of evidence led before the enquiry officer. Moreover, the appellant had also remained absent from duty. So far as the criminal trial is concerned, charge of willful absence from duty against the appellant was not under consideration, whereas, the enquiry officer found that the appellant had remained willfully absent from duty. 11. It is settled preposition of law that disciplinary authority and on appeal, the appellate authority are the fact finding authorities and have the exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. Courts, while exercising their power of judicial review, do not sit as an appellate authority and cannot reappreciate the evidence. Courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the basis of material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly conducted and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of evidence or reliable nature of the evidence would not be a ground to interfere with the findings in departmental enquiry. Courts will only interfere with the finding of fact recorded in the departmental enquiry only when the said findings are based on no evidence or when they are clearly perverse. The court will interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, mala-fide, capricious or based on extraneous considerations. This Court, while exercising power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion with regard to penalty and impose some other penalty unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. 12. In the present case, principles of natural justice were duly complied with and the enquiry officer, after appreciating the evidence led before it, held that charges levelled against the appellant were duly proved. Appellant was involved in a criminal case qua offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and had also remained absent from duty prior to his arrest. Appellant had failed to inform the department with regard to registration of criminal case against him. Appellant was involved in a criminal case qua offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and had also remained absent from duty prior to his arrest. Appellant had failed to inform the department with regard to registration of criminal case against him. Appellant had not joined the enquiry proceedings despite knowledge. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant. 13. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. 14. D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 613/2015 is dismissed. 15. Consequently, D. B. special Appeal (Writ) No. 615/2015 filed by the appellant challenging order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 3543/1998 seeking regularisation of his services on the post of Computer Operator, stands dismissed.