In disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the employer, and failure to provide adequate evidence can invalidate dismissal orders.

ORDER :

(Ganesh Ram Meena, J.) :

1. The petitioner by filing this writ petition has made a challenge to the order dated 17.10.1996 issued by the Commandant 6th Battalian, RAC, Dholpur, whereby he has been removed from service from the post of Constable and so also the order dated 31.03.1997 passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, RAC Range, Jaipur, whereby the appeal filed by him against the penalty order was also dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed to reinstate back him in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts in brief of the matter are that in furtherance of the recruitment process initiated by the respondents, the petitioner was selected by the Recruitment Board and was appointed as a Constable (Band)- a Member of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service on 23.12.1981 on probation for a period of two years and thereafter he was confirmed in service.

On 02.04.1996 the petitioner was served a chargesheet with the allegation that he was appointed as a Constable in RAC 6th Battalian on 23.12.1981 for which he appeared before the Recruitment Board on 06.07.1981 and submitted a Transfer Certificate issued by the Government Upper Primary School, Japawali, Badi Dholpur wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 15.01.1958 and was given appointment whereas his exact date of birth as per the record is 15.01.1950. He has obtained the appointment on the basis of forged educational certificate about his date of birth.

The explanation was submitted by the petitioner in regard to the charge-sheet and the Enquiry Officer was appointed so as to make an inquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report on 06.09.1996 and the Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the Enquiry Report said to have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 19.08.1996 and after hearing the petitioner in person on 17.10.1996 passed the order on the same day and imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 31.03.1997.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as regards the allegations leveled in the charge-sheet, a criminal case bearing No.190/1996 for offences under sections 420 and 471 IPC was also got registered at Police Station Nihalganj, District Dholpur, wherein after investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner. Counsel also submitted that the Court of learned Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (for short ‘the trial court’) after completion of the trial acquitted the petitioner from the charge under section 468 IPC, however, he was convicted for the offences under sections 420 and 471 IPC. Counsel also submitted that against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Juge, Dholpour (for shoret ‘the Appellate Court’). The learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 28.09.1999 and acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. Counsel submitted that when in a criminal case based on same facts the petitioner has been acquitted by the Competent Court, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the respondents on same facts and allegations stated to be proved, is not sustainable.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is a cryptic and innocuous order and same has been passed ignoring various objections raised by the petitioner relating to inquiry and therefore, same is not sustainable. Counsel also submitted that the order of dismissal from service is a non-speaking order passed without application of mind and so also the order is not sustainable for the reason that the objections raised by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice have not been dealt with. Counsel submitted that the petitione