Petitioner challenged dismissal for misconduct. Court rejected grounds of disproportionate punishment based on petitioner's criminal history as established by appellate authority, and found no error in evidence marshalling or document supply. Petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of dismissal upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2296/1998
Mahesh Singh Constable
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 06 /03/2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Mr. P.S. Sharma, for petitioner Mr. B.S. Rajawat, Dy. Govt. Counsel, for respondents
By this petition, a challenge is made to the order of punishment, dismissing petitioner from service so as the order passed on appeal.
The petitioner was served with the charge sheet alleging that on 12.03.1993, he was on duty from 10 AM to 5 PM, but without taking permission of competent authority, left the place of duty and fought with Surendra Singh Balai. After inquiry, petitioner was held guilty of the charges thus punished by the impugned order. The departmental appeal was also dismissed.
Learned counsel submits that inquiry into the matter was not conducted as per Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958. The petitioner demanded six documents
2
vide application dated 14.11.1994 however those documents were not supplied. Thus, serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner as inquiry proceeded without furnishing required documents. It is further stated that for single incidence, severe punishment has been given. The delinquency of petitioner was not such which warrants punishment of dismissal thus respondents inflicted disproportionate punishment on the petitioner. It is lastly stated that charges against petitioner were false. The inquiry officer found charges as proved without marshalling the evidence properly. Accordingly, for all the reasons above, impugned order of punishment deserves to be set aside. No other argument has been raised.
Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that petitioner was served with the charge sheet containing serious allegations as he not only left the place of working but went to a distant place to commit crime by beating Surendra Singh Balai.
The petitioner submitted an application to obtain copies of six documents. The copies of the documents were furnished to the petitioner on 25.11.1994. The
3
acceptance of document was recorded by the inquiry officer and issue aforesaid has been dealt with by the appellate authority in Para 5 of its order. The petitioner accordingly proceeded with the inquiry without protest hence allegation for non-supply of documents is not correct.
So far as allegation of disproportionate punishment is concerned, learned counsel submits that petitioner was a history-sheeter of the area as number of cases were pending against him. Thus, looking to overall circumstances, punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate hence interference in the order may not be caused. So far as proof of charges is concerned, proper evidence was led. The inquiry officer drawn his conclusion after marshaling evidence. The allegations are not false.
I have considered the submissions made and scanned the matter carefully.
Learned counsel for petitioner has raised three grounds before this court leaving others though raised while filing the writ petition.
The first ground is regarding non-supply of documents demanded vide application at Annexure-2.
4
The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition showing that documents were supplied to the petitioner on 25.11.1994. The petitioner made an endorsement of receipt. The aforesaid issue has been dealt with by the appellate authority in Para 5, showing receipt of the documents and has not been countered by petitioner. After going through the order, I find first allegation raised by petitioner is not made out.
So far as challenge to the punishment showing it to be disproportionate is concerned, the petitioner's conduct has been seen by the competent authority and reiterated by appellate authority. It is found that previously number of cases were registered against petitioner apart from a complaint under Gunda Control Act. He was declared to be history-sheeter of Phulera Police Station in the year 1982. The petitioner was found to be a person of criminal nature. The petitioner was dismissed at one point but reinstated as termination was not after complying with the rules. The petitioner failed to improve his conduct thus looking to all these facts, case is not made to cause interference or to show punishment to be disproportionate.
5
The last issue is with regard to proof of the charges. I find that inquiry officer has drawn his conclusion after marshaling evidence. The appellate authority has also passed a detailed order considering all the factual aspects. The charges are not found false. The finding so recorded is not perverse so as to cause interference. This court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot otherwise interfere in question of fact determined by competent authority. With the aforesaid, even third ground raised by petitioner cannot be accepted.
In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any ground to cause interference in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA/2296CWP1998.doc
Certificate:
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal of petitioner as a history-sheeter involved disproportionate punishment.
Whether inquiry documents were improperly withheld causing prejudice.
Whether findings on proof of charges were perverse or irrational.
Mahesh Singh
State of Rajasthan
M.N. Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
