Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J.
Hemraj S/o Shri Bhagwana Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15045 of 2019
Decided on : 24-01-2023
Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 17 – Criminal Procedure Code, Section 154(1) and 156(3) - Posted as Sub-Inspector – Order of punishment - Challenged - Petitioner in respect of Charge No.2 had explained that report relating to incident of theft was reported by complainant at Police Station and further investigation was required to be done by officers, who were responsible and petitioner being instructed by SHO had carried out his duty by going to place of occurrence and as such petitioner was not responsible in any manner if on a report of complainant, SHO or other person, who was assigned duty of investigation, did not register FIR - Whether Authorities have considered issue with regard to culpability of such officers in proper manner or not - There is no doubt that any complainant, if he approaches Police Authorities, it is their bounden duty to take note of complaint or information received by them and prompt action is required to be taken by persons, who have been assigned such statutory duties. Para 34
Finding of Court :
Objection raised by learned counsel for respondent-State in respect of dereliction of duty in not discharging duty in a proper manner, as petitioner was first contacted by complainant before going to Police Station and version of respondents is that complainant had first gone to petitioner to report about alleged incident as it fell in his jurisdiction and as such the petitioner is equally responsible in not discharging his duty, Court finds that in facts of present case, complainant had not only contacted Police Station but he had to go to office of Superintendent of Police also and even thereafter FIR was not lodged and then on a complaint being filed and matter being sent - Court finds that there is a specific allegation against co-delinquent that complainant had met such delinquent in Police Station and delinquent employee did not give FIR number in report which he had lodged and he had only sent a report without registering FIR to present delinquent - Disciplinary Authority on considering specific allegation against such other co-delinquent has punished him, however, role of petitioner, which has been assigned and allegation, which has been levelled against him, cannot be put at par and accordingly on that anvil, petitioner cannot be punished.
Result : Present writ petition stands allowed.
ORDER :
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of punishment of censure dated 26.07.2014,the order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting Departmental Appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Reviewing Authority.
2. The facts, in the nutshell, as pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police-Chowki Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara in the year 2011.
3. The petitioner was in receipt of a charge-sheet/memo issued to him under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter readas ‘the CCA Rules, 1958’), wherein three charges were levelled against him. The charges levelled against the petitioner are quoted hereunder:-
^^vkjksi la[;k 1 %& ifjoknh Jh lwjt ukjk;.k vks>k iq= Jh ca'kh yky vks>k fuoklh dkok dk [ksM+k Fkkuk dksrokyh HkhyokM+k ds ?kj esa fnukad 23-08-2011 dh jkf= dks pksjh gksus dh lwpuk Fkkukf/kdkjh dksrokyh HkhyokM+k }kjk fnukad 24-08-2011 dks lqcg vkidks nh xbZA bl lwpuk ij vki ?kVuk LFky ij x;s] fujh{k.k ?kVuk LFky fd;kA ifjoknh }kjk vkidks ekSds ij ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ is'k dh xbZ rks vkius fjiksVZ Fkkuk dksrokyh ij nsus dks dgk] tcfd fjiksVZ ij vkidks dk;Zokgh iqfyl fy[kdj vfHk;ksx iathc) djkuk pkfg, Fkk tks vki }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA
vkjksi la[;k 2 %&
ifjoknh Jh lwjt ukjk;.k }kjk pksjh dh fjiksVZ Fkkuk dksrokyh ij fnukad 24-08-2011 dks is'k dh xbZA fjiksVZ ij fnukad 25-08-2011 dks Mh0vks- Jh bdcky gqlSu l0m0fu0 }kjk dk;Zokgh iqfyl vafdr dh tkdj fjiksVZ vkids ikl pkSdh 'kkL=h uxj Hksth xbZA dk;Zokgh iqfyl esa vuqla/kku Jh f'kojkt flag] l0m0fu0 ds ftEes fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq ,Q-vkbZ-vkj esa vfHk;ksx la[;k vafdr ugha Fkh vkius vfHk;ksx la[;k vafdr djkus gsrq mDr ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dks Fkkuk dksrokyh HkhyokM+k ugah fHktok;k uk gh ;g Kkr fd;k fd vfHk;ksx ntZ gks x;k ;k ugha tcfd ;g vkids {ks= dh ?kVuk Fkh rFkk vkidks vfHk;ksx ntZ djkuk pkfg;s Fkk]
vkjksi la[;k 3 %&
mDr ifjoknh Jh lwjt ukjk;.k vks>k ds iq= Jh Hkxorh yky }kjk fnukad 26-08-2011 dks mDr pksjh ds ekeys esa 'kh?kz dk;Zokgh djus gsrq iqfyl v/kh{kd] ftyk HkhyokM+k ds dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksdj ifjokn iqfyl v/kh{kd HkhyokM+k dks is'k fd;k x;k tks tfj, i=kad 23913 fnukad 26-08-2011 dks Fkkuk dksrokyh HkhyokM+k Hkstk x;kA ifjokn Fkkuk dksrokyh HkhyokM+k ds ifjokn jftLVj esa ikVZ f}rh; Øek¡d 288 fnukad 26-08-2011 dks ntZ fd;k tkdj tkap gsrq vkids ikl iqfyl pkSdh 'kkL=h uxj Hkstk x;kA ;g ifjokn izkIr gksus ij Hkh vkus mDr laca/k esa vfHk;ksx iaftc) ugha djk;kA ftl ij ifjoknh us ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa U;k;ky; esa bLrxklk is'k fd;k tks /kkjk 156¼3½ Hkk-na-l- izkIr Fkkuk gksus ij vfHk;ksx la[;k 573@2011 /kkjk 457] 380 Hkk-na-la- fnukad 17-11-2011 dks iathc) fd;k x;kA ;g vfHk;ksx ?kVuk ds 3 ekg nsjh ls iathc) gqvk vkids mDr d`R; ds dkj.k ifjoknh ds mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds le{k ifjokn is'k djus dks volj feykA ftlls iqfyl foHkkx dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZA^^
4. The petitioner, after receipt of charge-sheet filed his reply before the Disciplinary Authority and submitted that the allegation levelled in charge No.1 against the petitioner was not proved at all as the incident relating to theft being committed at residence of complainant Suraj Narayan Ojha, had allegedly taken place on 23.08.2011 and information of the same was given to the petitioner by the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara on 24.08.2011.
5. The petitioner explained that the Charge No.1 was in fact for not lodging the FIR by the SHO concerned and the petitioner had no role in lodging the FIR.
6. The petitioner in respect of Charge No.2 had explained that the report relating to the incident of theft was reported by the complainant at Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara on 24.08.2011 and the further investigation was required to be done by the officers, who were responsible and the petitioner being instructed by the SHO had carried out his duty by going to the place of occurrence and as such the petitioner was not responsible in any manner if on a report of the complai
Point of Law : There is a specific allegation against the co-delinquent that complainant had met such delinquent in Police Station and delinquent employee did not give FIR number in report which he h....
Disciplinary authorities must issue reasoned orders and apply due process to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice, safeguarding employees against arbitrary judgments.
The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, particularly when imposing severe penalties.
The disciplinary authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment as per the rules, and the court's role in judicial review is to ensure fair treatment, not to reappreciate the evidence.....
Disciplinary proceedings require clear evidence of misconduct, and courts will not interfere unless strict procedural contraventions are present.
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
