Hari Singh S/o Ramlal vs State of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J.
Hari Singh S/o Ramlal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18980 of 2017
Decided on : 20-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Ram Kumar Swami, Adv. With Mr.Rakesh Kumar Swami, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr.P.S. Naruka, Adv. on behalf of Mr.Rupin Kala, Govt. Counsel.

Headnote:
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 – Rule 16 – Challenging charge-sheet – Punishment order – Departmental appeal and order – Rajasthan Armed Constabulary vide – Held, Court may interfere in proceedings held against delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with Rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory Rules prescribing mode of enquiry or where conclusion or finding reached by disciplinary authority if based on no evidence – If conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where conclusions upon consideration of evidence reached by disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued – To sum up, scope of judicial review cannot be extended to examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact – Writ petition dismissed.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging charge-sheet dated 14.09.2007, punishment order dated 31.03.2008, appellate order dated 10.02.2009 rejecting the departmental appeal and order dated 25.05.2017 rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary vide order dated 13.04.1995. The petitioner was posted at ‘C’ Company, 12th Battalion RAC (IR) Chankyapuri, New Delhi and he was served with a chargesheet dated 14.09.2007 issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1958’).

3. The petitioner has pleaded that memo along-with statement of allegations were based on an application submitted by father-in-law of the petitioner containing the false allegations that the petitioner had illicit relations with one Mukesh Kumari.

4. The petitioner has pleaded that memo of allegations revealed that the petitioner was married with one Sulochana and out of wedlock, two children were born. The petitioner was having illicit relation with one Constable- Mukesh Kumari, who was working in CRPF at New Delhi and she was already a married lady. The petitioner was living with his paramour in an illicit relationship and he did not meet his own legally wedded wife and children. The petitioner in spite of persuasion by his in-laws, continued to maintain illicit relations with his paramour and ignored to look after his wife and children. The said act was treated to be a serious misconduct of leading an immoral life and also an act of indiscipline.

5. The petitioner has pleaded that after receipt of charge-sheet, he had requested to supply him with the certified copy of the relevant documents vide applications dated 21.09.2007 and 28.09.2007. The petitioner, since, was not supplied the certified copy of the documents on the basis of which charges were framed and further, he was not given an opportunity of inspection within stipulated time and as such, the petitioner was not able to file reply.

6. The petitioner has pleaded that some incomplete illegible, irrelevant and unattested photocopies of the documents were made available to him after expiry of the stipulated period.

7. The petitioner is said to have made again an application on 09.10.2007 to supply him with complete and legible copy of all the documents and further requested to extend the time period to submit his representation.

8. The petitioner has pleaded that though time limit to file representation was extended for ten days vide order dated 04.10.2007, however, the same was meaningless without supply of copy of the documents.

9. The petitioner has pleaded that he had filed the various applications i.e. on 14.08.2007, 28.09.2007 and 09.10.2007 to grant him 30 days Privileged Leave for preparation of his representation and defence for the departmental enquiry, however, the request was not accepted and time was not extended.

10. The petitioner has pleaded that he had also requested to appoint an Assisting Officer but the same prayer was also rejected without any reason.

11. The petitioner has pleaded that on account of arbitrary and unconstitutional act of the respondents, the petitioner went into distress and mental agony with psychiatric illness. The petitioner is said to have taken some local treatment and thereafter he also consulted Doctor of Psychiatry Department in New Delhi.

12. The petitioner has pleaded that it was impossible for him to understand and make difference between good and bad and as such, he was not in a position to submit his representation.

13. The petitioner has pleaded that without affording an opportunity to effectively represent himself against the charge-sheet, the respondents arbitrarily appointed an Enquiry Officer with pre-determination to punish the petitioner.

14. The petitioner has pleaded that an ex-parte order date