NAUSHAD ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by petitioner Naushad Ali way back in the year 1997 assailing the order dated 29.06.1996 of his dismissal from service and order dated 18.06.1997 of the appellate authority thereby rejecting his appeal against the former order. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus quashing aforesaid two orders and directing to respondents to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits,

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that petitioner was initially appointed as a constable (Guard) in Jail Department on 02.08.1978 and was posted at Sub Jail, Malpura in District Tonk. An incident of break up of jail took place in that Jail on 02.05.1994 wherein six under-trial prisoners escaped from the jail by cutting rods of bathroom window. Petitioner was on duty in jail as a rifle sentry at its main gate from 10 PM to 2 AM in the intervening night of the fateful day. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner and few other delinquents. Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the CCA Rules') on 19.07.1994 wherein four charges were levelled against him, crux of which was that he was grossly negligent when the prisoners cut the rods of bathroom window during his duty hours in the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd of May, 1994 owing to which six prisoners, namely, Baldev Singh, Harvindra Singh, Dalip Sharma, Umesh @ Mahendra, Prahlad Ram Sharma and Sukh Dev Singh escaped from the jail. Conduct of petitioner was violative of Rules 81 to 84 and 253 (f) of the Jail Manual, 1984, Part 10 Section 3 thereof, because thereby he helped the prisoners escape from the jail.

(3.) On receipt of charge-sheet, petitioner by application dated 05.08.1994 requested disciplinary authority to make him available concerned record for inspection. The disciplinary authority however as per allegation of petitioner, without awaiting for his reply, appointed enquiry officer by order dated 23.01.1995. The Inspector General (Jail) wrote a letter to enquiry officer on 04.05.1995 that as and when petitioner demanded record, the same may be made available to him. Petitioner submitted an application to the Director General of Police on 24.07.1995 pointing out that demanded record was not made available to him. Petitioner specifically pointed out seven different documents which he demanded and were not supplied to him, on the basis of which preliminary enquiry report was prepared, namely, statements of Sentry Mohammad Sharif, prisoner Farid Mohammad S/o Shamsuddin, prisoner Panchya, prisoner Mool Singh, Sentry Radhey Shyam, Assistant Jailer Shri Rarnswaroop and Sentry Ramphool Meena. Petitioner was served with show cause-notice on 30.03.1996 along-with report of enquiry, calling upon him to submit his explanation and show cause within a fortnight as to why he should not be removed from service. Petitioner submitted detailed reply to show-cause notice on 08.05.1996 pointing out certain discrepancies made in the enquiry and the fact that there was no difference between the statements recorded during departmental enquiry and those recorded during criminal trial. Disciplinary authority however by his order dated 29.06.1996 dismissed the petitioner from service. Appeal filed by petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 18.06.1997. Hence this writ petition.