BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been jointly filed by three petitioners, who are all aggrieved by the common order dated 12/5/2006 by which they have been removed from service. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on the post of Sub Inspector on 12/12/1994. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on the post of Constable on 20/9/1989 and petitioner No. 3 was appointed on the post of Constable on 17/1/1995. Their appointment orders are on record respectively as Ann. 1, Ann. 2 and Ann. 3. They were on duty in the midnight of 15/16, April 2006 with Chetak Party No. 8 near Jawahar Nagar bye -pass (tila No. 7) at Jaipur. The then Superintendent of Police (Traffic) came there on sudden inspection. According to the petitioners, a truck halted there to enquire from them about the way to Ajmer. One of the members of the party guided him to the said way. Superintendent of Police (Traffic) immediately called the police party in the said Chetak No. 8 and enquired as to what he was talking to the driver. According to the petitioners, Superintendent of Police (Traffic) made enquiries from the driver of the truck and was satisfied that he was asking the way to Ajmer, but as per respondents, the Superintendent of Police (Traffic) on enquiry from the driver came to know that petitioners No. 2 and 3 Vijay Kumar and Rajendra Singh were demanding a sum of Rs. 100/ - from him. The petitioner No. 1 Banwari Lal -Sub Inspector was the incharge of Chetak Party No. 8 and therefore he was also vicariously held responsible for the act of other two Constables. Superintendent of Police (Traffic) reported the matter to the Inspector General of Police, Jaipur 1st, who vide its order dated 12/5/2006 while invoking Rule 19(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the "Rules of 1958") dispensed with the departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and removed all the three petitioners from service.

(2.) SHRI Sandeep Bhagwati, learned counsel for petitioners has argued that the order of removal has been passed only on the basis of preliminary enquiry in which petitioners fully explained their conduct that they were not guilty of demanding any illegal gratification. It is wrongly alleged that petitioners No. 2 and 3 demanded Rs. 100/ - from the driver on the aforesaid route. The statement of the driver was not recorded. The Superintendent of Police (Traffic) himself permitted the driver to go away. Reason for dispensing with the enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 by invoking Rule 19(2) thereof is hardly convincing. All that has been stated is that since name, address of the driver and the registration number of the truck was not obtained and therefore now it would not be possible to procure all these evidence., Even if the driver is produced, he might not strict to the allegation. It was quite possible that he might be won over by the delinquents. Learned counsel submitted that the law on the question of dispensing with the departmental enquiry is well settled. None of these three reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority can justify' invocation of Rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1958 to dispense with the full fledged departmental enquiry. The impugned order has been passed in a most arbitrary manner and in colourable exercise of power. Although the petitioners were made to face the preliminary enquiry but no notice was ever served upon them before removal from service. They were not provided with any opportunity of hearing on proposed action prior to passing of the impugned -order. The impugned order of removal from service thus is wholly illegal and does not qualify the requirements of clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) or for that matter Rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1958.

(3.) PER contra, Shri B.S. Rajawat, learned Deputy Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that the disciplinary authority was in the facts of the present case perfectly justified in invoking provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1958 as he was satisfied that it was not reasonably practical to hold the regular departmental enquiry in prescribed manner. The disciplinary authority has substantiated his such satisfaction with reasons. Learned Deputy Government Counsel has in this connection referred to the impugned order dated 12/5/2006 to bring home the argument. It is argued that power to dispense with the enquiry has been exercised by the disciplinary authority in public interest and in the interest of fair police administration. He has exercised such power in bonafide way. There is no allegation by the petitioners that disciplinary authority was having any malice against them. There is substantial material on record justifying formation of such opinion by the disciplinary authority. He has acted on the report by the Superintendent of Police (Traffic), a senior IPS Officer, who verified the complaint against petitioners by personally making sudden inspection of the place, where they were deputed to discharge their duties. The Superintendent of Police also informed that petitioners were not wearing proper uniforms and both constables tendered their apology at the site and accepted their guilt before the Superintendent of Police. Petitioners were found acting contrary to their oath and diligence. By this act of theirs, the image of the police has been seriously been tarnished in general public. Therefore, there was no option left with him but to dispense with the enquiry and pass the removal order holding the enquiry not practically possible. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Satyavir Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., : AIR 1996 SC 555. It is also argued that the petitioners have got alternate remedy of departmental appeal under Rule 22 before the disciplinary authority and review/revision before His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958. He therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed either on merits or as not maintainable.