Order

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. By way of filing the present civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

(i) the impugned order dated 16.09.2014 (Ann.8) passed by the respondent no. 2, order dated 30.09.2015 (Ann.13) Joint Secretary Home (Appeals), order dated 20.02.2020 (Ann.15) and order dated 01.03.2020 (Ann.16) may kindly be declared highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) the respondent authority may kindly be directed to provide all service benefits to the petitioner including the increment which was stopped by the respondent authority.

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that in the year 2012, while the petitioner was holding the post of SHO, Police Station Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner, one Ved Prakash submitted a written report alleging, inter alia, that on 31.03.2012, certain transgender persons had unauthorizedly entered into his house and demanded money. It was alleged that the son of the complainant paid a sum of Rs.251/- to the transgender persons; however, they demanded a further sum of Rs.5,100/-. Upon refusal, they assaulted the son of the complainant, abused him, disrobed themselves and behaved in an obscene manner. As per the report, the accused persons, threw chairs from the drawing room of the complainant, broke the mirror of his car and had also snatched a sum of Rs.1,800/-. After registration of the FIR by the complainant, the petitioner entrusted the investigation of the matter to one Jetharam – Head Constable. During the initial investigation, the investigating officer could not ascertain the identity of the persons involved in the occurrence; however, he identified one Sultan as the driver of the taxi in which the accused persons had reached the house of the complainant. A negative final report was proposed by the investigating officer. The petitioner, in his capacity as SHO, accepted the aforesaid proposal and, therefore, submitted FR No.50 dated 30.04.2012 before the competent criminal Court. Thereafter, the police reopened the matter and the investigation was entrusted to one Gyan Prakash –ASI, who proceeded with the investigation, identified the accused persons and, thereafter, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 451, 323, 341 and 143 of the IPC.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Bikaner, thereafter, on 17.05.2013 (Annexure-4), through the Superintendent of Police, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating, inter alia, that the investigation in the matter was not conducted properly by the previous investigating officer, as he did not interrogate the taxi driver, namely, Sultan, and the neighbours of the complainant therein thoroughly. The investigating officer investigated the matter in a very informal/casual manner and proposed a negative final report. This indicated that the petitioner had committed supervisory negligence in the matter. The petitioner, on 27.05.2013 (Annexure-5), submitted a reply to the show cause notice and denied the charge of supervisory negligence. In the reply, he stated that all possible efforts were made to identify the accused persons; however, when the identity of the accused could not be established, the negative final report was proposed in the matter.

4. Being dissatisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner, the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority, on 03.04.2014 (Annexure-6), served the petitioner with a memorandum of charges/charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958,