The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry officer's findings and must ensure adherence to procedural rules in conducting inquiries, even amid ongoing criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The matter is finally heard at the motion stage with the parties' consent.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief :

"7. In the light of the foregoing facts and circumstances it is prayed that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed:

A. Further the impugned orders dated 13.01.2021 passed in departmental revision; the order dated 31/08/2020 passed in departmental appeal and the order dated 29/03/2019 may be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

B. Respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary with interest from 29.03.2019 till the date of actual realization in the interest of justice.

C. Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit in the prevailing circumstances."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as a constable in the respondent/department at Dabra Distt. Gwalior. On 11.06.2016 the petitioner applied for one day's leave through the proper channels and the same was also granted by the competent authority. While on leave the petitioner was wrongfully detained by the Datia police in Crime No. 50/2014 in which the petitioner was charged under IPC and Arms Act. Due to his wrongful detention, the petitioner wasn’t able to resume his services on 12/06/2016, which is beyond the control of the petitioner. Due to wrongful detention and seizure of cell phones, the petitioner was unable to rejoin the service or intimate about the same to the department officials about the whole situation. Consequently, the petitioner was suspended from service vide order dated 20/06/2016 Annexure P/7. In pursuance of the suspension order, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 153 of RPF Rules, 1987 (In short 'RPF Rules'). The petitioner was served with a memorandum of three charges as per Annexure P/4. The inquiry officer after conducting the inquiry, submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 24.02.2019 and no charge has been found proved against the petitioner but respondent no.3 without issuing notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2019 whereby, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal and revision before the authorities but the same was also dismissed without application of mind or granting an opportunity of hearing. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer by submitting in their return that the petitioner had applied and requested for sanction of one-day rest permission on 11.06.2016, and the same was granted by the competent authority. Thereafter, the petitioner should have reported on 12.06.2016 for duty. But the petitioner was arrested by the Civil Lines Police Station, Datia (M.P) on 13.06.2016, and the criminal case No.50/14 U/sec.302, 34, 149, 148,147, 201, 120(B), 195, 194 of IPC and Section 25 ,27 of Arms Act was registered against him. This case is still pending and is under trial. Therefore, the petitioner was kept under suspension by Assistant Security Commissioner RPF Gwalior on 20.06.2016 w.e.f. 13.06.2016 and after conducting an inquiry and after issuing the charge sheet, inquiry has been conducted and the petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunity of hearing, and vide order dated 24.02.2019, the charges were found proved against the petitioner. Then, the disciplinary auth