Dhuda Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Amitava Roy, C.J.—Distraught by the penalty of dismissal from service, as a disciplinary measure, and the non-interference therewith by this Court, inspite of challenge thereto, as laid in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2877/1994, the appellant seeks redress. We have heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. Dharamveer Tholia, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

An abridged version of the rival facts would present the factual background. The appellant/writ petitioner has averred that he was appointed in the police service as Constable in Armed Force, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 17.2.1972, and subsequent thereto, was promoted as Head Constable on 10.7.1980. While he was serving as such under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, in the year 1984, the Jaipur District was divided into two zones i.e. (i) Jaipur City and; (ii) Jaipur Rural, each headed by an independent Superintendent of Police. His services were however, transferred under the control of the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural.

While the matter rested at that, a memorandum of charges dated 9.2.1989 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural initiating a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereafter referred to as ''the Rules''). Charges of overstaying sanctioned period of leave and during that period, misusing his service position to commit offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 325 & 323 IPC were levelled against him. It was mentioned inter alia that in connection with the criminal offence, FIR No. 129/83 dated 10.7.1983 had been registered in the Police Station, Srimadhopur.

The appellant/writ petitioner submitted his reply contending inter alia that the charges were unfounded. According to him, in the incident resulting in the aforestated police case, the other side were aggressors, in connection with which, FIR No. 128/83 under Section 148, 447 & 323 read with Section 149 IPC had been registered as well. He stated further he had left the headquarter on 16.6.1983 on sanctioned leave, and thereafter, had sent applications seeking extension of the duration of 7 days, which was granted, He also requested for being furnished with the copies of the documents, on which the charges were based, and also made a prayer to inspect the relevant records. He took the plea as well that in view of pendency of the criminal trial in the criminal case, the disciplinary proceeding, as contemplated, ought not to be furthered.

The disciplinary proceeding however, proceeded thereafter. The appellant/writ petitioner alleged bias against the Enquiry Officer, so much so, that he not only alleged that he had demanded illegal gratification, but also that he had threatened to dismiss him from service. The appellant/writ petitioner therefore, did not participate in the disciplinary proceeding, which according to him thus, proceeded ex parte, and statement of witnesses were also recorded in his absence. His request to change the Enquiry Officer was also not heeded to. Eventually, by order dated 9.2.1990 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural, he was dismissed from service. His departmental appeal against the same also failed. He then turned to this Court with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3142/1990, which was disposed of on 18.11.1991, whereby the order of dismissal was interfered with and the respondents were required to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant/writ petitioner. They were left at liberty to pass orders afresh, thereafter. The appellant/writ petitioner was furnished with a copy of the Enquiry Officer''s report, to which he submitted his reply. Eventually, by order dated 31.3.1992 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural, he was again dismissed from service. Having unsuccessfully appealed against the said penalty before the departmental Appellate Authority, he instituted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2877/1994. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.5.2006, having dismissed his impugnment, the appeal has ensued.

The respondents, in their reply, stated that the appellant/writ petitioner though was sanctioned 7 days'' casual leave from 16.6.1983, he did not join the duties thereafter, and instead, participated in the commission of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 325 & 323 IPC, for which FIR No. 129/83 was registered with the Police Station, Srimadhopur, and he was challaned in connection therewith. The respondents pleaded that the appellant/writ petitioner also did not submit any medical certificate alongwith his application for the period of absence. They categorically denied the allegation of bias levelled against the Enquiry Officer and the demand of graft by him. According to the answering respondents, the appellant/writ petitioner wilfully did not participate in the departmental proceedings, inspite of due notice, and therefore, the same had to be conducted ex parte. They pleaded further that his request to change the Enquiry Officer, on examination, was found to be wholly baseless, and was thus, rejected. The respondents asserted as well that after the matter was remanded, the appellant/writ petitioner was furnished with the copy of the Enquiry Officer''s report, to which he submitted a reply, and subsequent thereto, on a threadbare analysis of all relevant aspects, factual and legal, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him.

Mr. Sharma has argued that as the appellant/writ petitioner had been denied the procedural safeguards mandated by Rule 16 of the Rules, the disciplinary proceeding is per se non est in law, and thus, the impugned order ought to be interfered with. According to him, not only the Enquiry Officer was biased, the enquiry was unfairly conducted ex parte against him. The learned counsel has urged that the appellant/writ petitioner, in due time, had applied for extension of the period of leave, which was granted, and thus, the charge to this effect is wholly unfounded. Mr. Sharma has insisted that as in the criminal trial, the appellant/writ petitioner, though convicted under Section 147 IPC, was let off on probation, the penalty of dismissal from service, being grossly disproportionate, by all means, ought not to have been sustained by the learned Single Judge.

Mr. Tholia, in reply, has maintained that not only the disciplinary proceeding had been administered strictly in accordance with the relevant rules, the appellant/writ petitioner was afforded all reasonable opportunities to contest the charge. He submitted that no prayer for extension of the period of leave had been made by the appellant/writ petitioner and the records would reveal that he had remained unauthorizedly absent, beyond the period sanctioned. Dismissing the allegation of bias against the Enquiry Officer, as wholly unfounded, Mr. Tholia has argued that the appellant/writ petitioner, having intentionally abstained from the disciplinary proceeding, his remonstrance based on violation of the principles of natural justice is not only misplaced, but also lacks in bona fide. Mr. Tholia has argued as well that being a member of the disciplined force, the appellant/writ petitioner, having been convicted under Section 147 IPC, the Disciplinary Authority was perfectly justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, on an overall consideration of the attendant facts and circumstances.

We have examined the rival pleadings and have analyzed as well the rival arguments.

That the appellant/writ petitioner has been convicted under Section 147 IPC in connection with the incident referred to in the memorandum of charges, is more than apparent from the judgment and order dated 15.4.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Reengus, District Sikar in case No. 96/93(199/83). He was however, released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It was observed further that this conviction would not inter alia be a disqualification qua him.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant/writ petitioner had been convicted in a criminal case. This assumes significance, in view of the fact that at all relevant times, he was a member of the disciplined force. The appellant/writ petitioner''s plea that he had sought for extension of the period of leave, which had been granted, is not borne out by the records. A bare perusal of the order dated 31.3.1992 passed by the Disciplinary Authority would reveal that this plea was examined and rejected, on a due scrutiny of the official records. Incidentally, the date of the incident in connection with which he had been convicted, is during the period of his absence. The Disciplinary Authority, as the order dated 31.3.1992 would demonstrate, did examine inter alia the reply of the appellant/writ petitioner in details, and rejected his plea of want of competence of the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural in initiating the proceeding, ex parte conduct thereof and the bias of the Enquiry Officer. It was held, on the basis of the disclosures from the records, that inspite of notice to him, he declined to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. It is not denied that after the remand, he had been furnished with the copy of the Enquiry Officer''s report, to which he submitted his reply. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority also does disclose the consideration of such reply. The order of dismissal was passed, taking note of the fact that the charges levelled against him had been proved, and that, he was guilty of gross misconduct and indiscipline, unbecoming of the office of a member of a disciplined force.

The learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, did consider as well these aspects, and in view of the constricted scope of scrutiny in the exercise of power of judicial review, declined to intervene. On an overall conspectus of the facts attendant on the present adjudication, we too, are of the unhesitant opinion that no interference is called for. The plea of disproportionate punishment, having regard to the uncompromising need to maintain probity and discipline of the police force to sustain societal confidence and institutional orderliness, in the above factual premise, does not weigh with us, as well. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed.