Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Bench dated 21.02.2006, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the order of his dismissal from service was dismissed.

2. The appellant had been working as a Constable since 15.08.1984 and a criminal case was registered against him for committing theft in the house of one Vinod Kumar in the night of 02.08.1988. He had also proceeded on three days casual leave from 18.07.1988 but instead of reporting for duty on expiry of the said period, he remained absent from duty without leave for over 49 days and charge sheet was served upon him on 16.03.1989 under Section 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules"). He submitted reply to the charge sheet and the Superintendent of Police who is competent authority appointed Shri Yashpal Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police as inquiry Officer vide order dated 11.04.1989. However, inquiry officer who was supposed to submit the report was transferred and hence his successor in office considering the material of inquiry, submitted the inquiry report wherein charges were found proved against the appellant. The Superintendent of Police after considering the inquiry report concurred with the finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer. The appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 20.12.1989 (Annexure-9). Against which he preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of CCA Rules which was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 23.08.1990 (Annexure-11).

3. Learned counsel for appellant has contended that the appellant could not have been punished for the charge of theft as in the criminal case which had been registered for this act, he had been acquitted by the trial court. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129. He has further submitted that the inquiry officer who had been appointed earlier had been transferred from service and the successor could not have proceeded any further in the matter without fresh order of appointing him as inquiry officer.

4. He has also contended that the Superintendent of Police, Dholpur who had passed the order of dismissal was not competent to do so as in terms of circular issued by the Government he was competent only to impose punishment of withholding of increment. Lastly, he argued that as the period of absence without leave had been regularised he could not have been dismissed on this count.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General for the State submitted that there were two grave charges of misconduct against the appellant namely, commission of theft and absence without leave, which had been thoroughly proved in the departmental enquiry. In support of his submission, he invited our attention to the finding with regard to the charge of theft wherein it is evident that there was adequate material on record to prove the charge.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record.

7. We are conscious of the fact that this court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction will not substitute the view taken by the departmental authority. The interference with the departmental inquiry would be called for only to the extent that it should not be a case of no evidence or finding recorded by the inquiry officer is perverse. However, we have examined the order of the inquiry officer especially with regard to the commission of theft. It is evident from the perusal of inquiry that there is adequate material to support the charge of theft. Vinod Kumar PW-3 at whose house theft had taken place had categorically stated that the appellant had slept at his house while Shiv Lal PW-4 had also deposed that the stolen articles which were