Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ompal Singh vs State & Ors on 19 September, 2017
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3610/1999
Ompal Singh S/o Shri Reghuveer Singh, aged 28 years, by caste
Rajput, resident of Kalyanpura Bass, Police Station, Kotputali,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Commissioner for Home
Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range,
Udaipur.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Puneet Singhvi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Dr.A.S.Khangrot, AAG _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 19/09/2017 The petitioner, who was Constable in Rajasthan Police, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand dated 24.12.1992. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 18.09.1997, by which, in his departmental appeal, the punishment of "dismissal" was substituted with "discharge" from service.
The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner having passed Secondary Examination in the year 1990 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer came to be appointed on the post of Constable on 06.05.1992 after undergoing the regular (2 of 8) [CW-3610/1999] recruitment process. The petitioner after undergoing the initial prescribed training, was posted in Police Line, Rajsamand, where he was served with an order dated 24.12.1992 passed by Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand dismissing him from the service. The petitioner was informed in the said order that a complaint was received against him that he had secured the employment on the basis of forged certificate of his educational qualification. It was communicated that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nathdwara and said preliminary report was sent to Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand. The Superintendent of Police communicated that the petitioner - Om Pal Singh had pasted photograph of some other person on the admission form of 10 th class examination and in the name of Om Pal Singh, some other person appeared in the said examination. It was communicated that the education certificate of the petitioner being forged, he was not to be treated as 10 th class passed while he was only 8 th pass and as such, the order of dismissal from service was passed.
The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the order dated 24.12.1992 filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur and requested that the order passed by the Superintendent of Police was liable to be set aside as the petitioner was visited with the major penalty under Rules 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 and no procedure for imposing penalty as envisaged under the Rules of 1958 was followed. The petitioner submitted in his appeal that the punishment order passed against (3 of 8) [CW-3610/1999] him was also in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, 300-A and 311 of the Constitution. The petitioner highlighted that the Superintendent of Police did not afford any opportunity of hearing and basic principles of natural justice was also violated.
The appellate authority by its order dated 05.03.1997 substituted the punishment from dismissal to discharge and same was communicated by the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamnd by order dated 18.09.1997, the order impugned in the present writ petition.
The petitioner has submitted that an FIR No.2/1993 was also lodged against him at the Police Station, Rajsamand on 03.01.1993 under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 471 IPC. After investigation, the police had submitted challan against him and the Criminal Case No.389/1995 was tried by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. The trial court after recording the entire evidence of prosecution and also the statements which the petitioner produced in his defence, came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner of forging the document was not proved and as such, he was acquitted. The trial court also recorded its finding and made observations against the Investigating Officer that no relevant record was summoned from the office of Superintendent (Examination Center) or the Rajasthan Secondary Board Education (Office) nor any person was got examined in support of the claim that forged document was prepared. The Court also made strong observation against the Investigating Officers that they were biased against the present petitioner as they wanted to implicate him in the criminal case.
(4 of 8) [CW-3610/1999] The Court while parting with the order of acquittal, recommended to the Police Authorities to initiate departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer Shri Niranjan Prasad and the Incharge of Police Station, Shri Pooran Singh.
The petitioner after acquittal from the criminal case submitted representation before the Competent Authority for his reinstatement, however, no action was taken. Faced with this situation, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed substantively on the post of Constable after undergoing regular selection and his services could not have been terminated in a slipshod manner. The learned counsel has argued that before dismissing the petitioner from service, no procedure of holding regular inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 was followed. The learned counsel has submitted that even the basic principles of natural justice was not followed and only on the basis of some preliminary enquiry conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, the services of the petitioner have been terminated in the most arbitrary manner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has made submission that once the criminal case was decided and honourable acquittal of the petitioner was made, the Departmental Authorities ought to have considered the said fact and should have reinstated the petitioner back in the service. The learned counsel has submitted that representation of the petitioner filed after acquittal, did not (5 of 8) [CW-3610/1999] yield any result. Learned counsel has further highlighted that while passing the order of acquittal by the trial court, the Presiding Officer has made strong observations against the Investigating Officer and Incharge of Police Station that they were biased to implicate the petitioner and by any means they were determined to spoil the career of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in wake of such strong observations and charge of creating any forged document not proved, termination of his services is absolutely untenable in eye of law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that once he was acquitted in a criminal charge, on the same charge or set of facts, the Department could not have dismissed him from service. The learned counsel submits that it is a settled law that if an employee is honourably acquitted in a criminal trial, no contrary finding can be recorded in the departmental proceedings and if such findings and proceedings are there, they are required to be termed as unjust, unfair and oppressive.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appellate authority has not considered any of the submissions raised by the petitioner in his appeal and only in cursory manner, the punishment order has been substituted from dismissal to discharge.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., reported in (1999(2 Supreme Court Cases 10 and in G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 446.
(6 of 8) [CW-3610/1999] Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, Dr.A.S.Khangarot, has supported the impugned orders. The learned counsel submits that since there was material available with the competent authority in the form of preliminary enquiry, the conscious decision was taken to remove the petitioner from service by way of passing the dismissal order.
The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that investigation was not conducted properly in the criminal case, hence, strictures were passed against Investigating Officer and Incharge of Police Station but the same cannot be of any advantage to the petitioner.
This Court has considered the rival submissions and gone through the material on record.
The perusal of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police on 24.12.1992 clearly shows that an opinion has been formed on the basis of preliminary enquiry being conducted against the petitioner by Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police has further recorded that on police verification of educational qualification of the petitioner, it was found that in the admission card for appearing in the 10 th class examination, photograph of somebody else was pasted and in fact, examination was written by some other person. The said order is prima facie an illegal order. The Superintendent of Police while dealing with the issue of procuring a forged document for seeking employment, could not have passed the order of dismissal from service in such a slipshod and cursory manner.
This Court finds that a person who is substantively (7 of 8) [CW-3610/1999] appointed, cannot be asked to go home by way of order of dismissal without holding an enquiry as contemplated under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958. The shortcut method which has been adopted by the Disciplinary Authority is nothing but a wholesale breach of the Rules of 1958. It is trite law that after entering into service, if any misconduct is committed by a substantively appointed employee, there is mechanism provided under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 to deal with such a situation and after holding proper departmental enquiry any of the punishment enumerated in Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 can be passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The present case is a glaring example where disciplinary authority/the appointing authority did not adopt the regular procedure before taking any action against the delinquent-petitioner. This Court finds that such cryptic order without following due procedure of law is not legally sustainable.
This Court further finds that after acquittal by the trial court in a criminal case in respect of self same charge of fabricating a forged document, the petitioner once being honourably acquitted, the Departmental Authorities/respondents ought to have re-visited the order, particularly when representations were filed by the petitioner requesting them to re-visit the impugned orders. The authorities have paid no head and as such, they have abdicated their duty towards the employee. The Court is further of the opinion that the Appellate Authority, who was to decide the fate of the petitioner by considering the various submissions raised by him, also did not act as per the requirement of the Rajasthan Civil (8 of 8) [CW-3610/1999] Services (CCA) Rules as well as of law. The substitution of penalty from dismissal to discharge is without any application of mind and, the punishment order was substituted in the most cryptic order. The Appellate Authority once was apprised that no procedure under CCA rules was followed and even, principles of natural justice was also not followed, yet did not record any reason for not considering the pleas raised by the delinquent.
Though the counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgments of Apex Court to buttress his submission that a person cannot be punished in departmental enquiry if he has been acquitted in a criminal trial, this Court need not to go into the said issue as this Court has already found that there is wholesale breach of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 and principles of natural justice in passing the impugned orders.
Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned orders dated 24.12.1992 (Annx.2) and 18.09.1997 (Annx.4) are quashed & set aside. The petitioner is held entitled for 50% of back wages from his date of dismissal from service till his reinstatement. The respondents-Authorities are required to comply with the order within a period of two months. There will be no order as to costs.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR)J. NK