JAGDISH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 23. 10. 1990, 20. 4. 1998 (Annex. 6) and 30. 7. 1998 by which the petitioner has been removed from service.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was employed as a Constable in Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway and was posted at Jodhpur. He was tried in a criminal case and stood convicted for the offences punishable under Section 379/511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 4. 11. 1998 (Annx. 1 ). However, petitioner was given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act, 1958") and an observation was made that petitioner's service career would not be adversely affected by the said conviction. Simultaneously the Department had also initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1979 (for short, "the Act, 1979") and the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short, "rules, 1987" ). After completion of the enquiry, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority in 1982. Inspite of conclusion of the inquiry, no final orders were passed because of pendency of the criminal case. After conclusion of the criminal trial, a show cause notice dated 28. 9. 1990 was served upon the petitioner, alongwith a copy of the inquiry report, under Rule 44 of the Rules, 1987 as to why he should not be dismissed from service for the reason that charge of committing theft stood proved against him in the inquiry. Instead of filing reply to the said show cause, petitioner filed S. B. C. W. P. No. 4457/1990 and this Court, vide order dated 6. 11. 90, passed an interim order in his favour. However, it appears that petitioner's services stood terminated vide order dated 23. 10. 1990, i. e. prior to the date of passing the said interim order by this court. Petitioner withdrew the writ petition on 26. 9. 1997 and submitted the reply to the said show cause notice dated 28. 9. 1990. THE Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 20. 4. 1998 (Annex. 4) that as petitioner had already been dismissed from service on 23. 10. 1990, no further order was required. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 9 (2) of the Act, 1958, which has been dismissed vide order dated 30. 7. 1998. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Jaipur Bench of this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 31. 7. 2000 (Annx. 9) with liberty to file the petition before the Principal Seat of this Court. Hence this petition.

(3.) PETITIONER has not filed the copy of the order dated 23. 10. 1990, nor he has asked the Court to issue direction to the respondents to give him the copy of the said order. It is strange that he preferred the appeal without obtaining the copy of the said impugned order. Nor he has filed the copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 30. 7. 1998, though mentioned in the petition but has not been annexed. However, the said order has been placed on record by the respondents alongwith their reply as Annx. R/1. Though appeal is continuation of a suit, it may still be doubtful that petition can be entertained as such.