Decided on March 28,1967

RATANLAL Respondents


- (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the state against the appellate judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur, decreeing the plaintiff's suit in the following terms: (a) The plaintiff is granted a declaration that the orders of departmental authorities evidenced by Exs. 5 and 6 are illegal, and contrary to law. (b) The amount which has been withheld from the pay of the appellant amounting to Ra. 367. (8 was illegally withheld. The plaintiff is granted a decree for that amount, (c) The judgment passed in this case will not prevent the Government from chargesheeting the appellant again in respect of the occurrence of 4 October 1951. (d) The appellant will have costs of the appeal from respondent 1.
(2.) THE facts leading to this second appeal may be briefly stated as follows. The plaintiff-respondent was appointed as a sub-inspector of police on 14 December 1949 and was subsequently confirmed on 8 August 1952. In the month of October 1961 he was stationed at Banner as a sub-inspector of the District Intelligence Branch (C. I. D.), Barmer. In the discharge of his duties he arrested one Khanu Barber when the latter was seen coming from Pakistan with 11 "thans" of cloth. This Khanu Barber was produced in the Barmer police station but subsequently he was let off and not prosecuted. The plaintiff-respondent and Umed Singh, the station-house officer, in charge of the police station, Barmer, and a head constable were suspected of dereliction of duty in connexion with the arrest and release of Khanu Barber and it was considered proper to hold a departmental enquiry against them. On 24 January 1952 the plaintiff-respondent was served with a chargesheet by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barmer. The first charge alleged that he having arrested Khanu Barber with 11" thans " of smuggled cloth produced him in the police station, Barmer, but subsequently he was let off by Umed Singh and the plaintiff and was not produced before the Customs authorities and that in doing so, he acted dishonestly. The seoond charge against the plaintiff-respondent was that Dharnidhar, Naraindas, Sheoshanker and Rawatmal had made entries in the roznamcha, dated 4 October 1951, about the incident relating to the arrest of Khanu Barber and the plaintiff-respondent had subscribed his signatures in the roznamcha but he got the signatures in the roznamcha of Naraindas, Shiveshanker and Rawatmal erased and got the paper in Dharnidhar's roznamcha torn. Further, after enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police recorded findings against the plaintiff-respondent. The findings were sent through the superintendent of Police, to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police recorded the following findings against the plaintiff-respondent: The sub-inspectors Umed Singh and Ratanlal conjointly conspired and let off the accused along with the camel. They also prepared false farads and made false entries in the police record.
(3.) A finding was also recorded against head constable Harakchand. On the basis of these findings, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police awarded the punishment of reduction in their pay by two increments for a period of two years.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.