VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was recruited as a Constable having been regularly selected in Aug. 1959 and ever since was working in the Police Establishment.
(2.) A complaint was filed against the petitioner by one Nasir Khan on 21. 9. 1995 upon which complaint the petitioner was charge- sheeted on 18. 7. 1996. It was mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner was convict in criminal case No. 28/52 of July 1952 having been so convicted in the year 1954 i. e. 5 years before the recruitment. It was the allegation that against Col. No. 8 of the application he had omitted to mention the fact whether he was involved in any criminal case or was a convict and, thus he had violated the Rajasthan Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1971. The petitioner replied and stated that he does not remember as to what he had filled in the application form but had stated that the offence u/sec. 147/323/325/4 IPC did not fall within the offences involving moral turpitude and the action being taken against him be dropped. Enquiry is said to have been held and he was issued show cause notice on 28. 4. 1997 with the proposed punishment of removal from service and ultimately vide Annexure-6 dated 13. 5. 1998, the petitioner was removed from service. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is mentioned in the order of removal Annexure-6 that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for one year on 19. 4. 1954 and at the time of filling of the form, the Col. 8 which relates to conviction or criminal trial, the petitioner has not mentioned this fact. The service record has been produced for perusal. The petitioner was appointed in August 1959 as per the record. The DIG of Police, Jaipur had directed the S. P. , jaipur for verification of the antecedents vide letter dated 22. 12. 1959. There is verification form which is signed by the petitioner. On 28. 8. 1959 the S. P. i. e. after the order of appointment which is dated 6. 8. 1959 had directed the SHO to verify the antecedents and report back after verification. Column No. 8 related to the question whether the petitioner was any time involved in any of the criminal case or was ever convicted. There is cross mark against such column. S. P. had sent this form to the SHO Sikar for verification. This verification form which is on the file even though sent to the SHO Sikar by the S. P. has not been replied to as there is not such paper brought on record that any verification was done by SHO Sikar or not. It was after 36 years of service rendered by the petitioner that one complaint was received against the petitioner of his being an earlier convict in the year 1954 and the enquiry was held on such complaint and ultimately the petitioner wa dismissed from service vide impugned order. Dismissal from service entails forfeiture of retrial benefits as well. The date of birth of the petitioner according to record is 5. 9. 1940 and in ordinary course he would have superannuated on 30. 9. 1998 but he has been dismissed just four months prior to his superannuation. Even though it has been held by this court that if there is concealment of fact by a Constable about his being convict or facing a criminal trial, in that situation, such constable or police officer cannot be retained in service, but here in the present case situation is different. For the fault of the respondent, the petitioner had been made to suffer when he had put in more than 38 years of service and just four months before his actual superannuation, he had been dismissed from service. Had the verification been conducted by the SHO immediately in August 1959 or immediately thereafter when S. P. , Jaipur had directed the SHO to do so, the action could have been taken in 1959 itself. The department kept silent for more than 36 yrs. and at this stage it is highly unjustified for the department to dismiss the petitioner on the verge of his retirement.
(3.) THE following facts are necessary to be enumerated:- THE petitioner was appointed as Constable on 5. 8. 1959. THE verification form which is on record and also attached as Annex. 1 to the written statement was not filled up before the appointment but after the appointment which was sent for verification to SHO Sikar by the SP, Jaipur. Had the Police Department including the SHO Sikar verified the fact in regard to Col. 8 and the so called concealment, the decision should have been taken immediately on his appointment or immediately thereafter of the fact whether he was to be retained in service or not. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the SHO Sikar had done his duty in regard to verification. THEre is no such verification on record. THE complaint is received in the year 1995 and the charge-sheet is issued in the year 1996 and in September 1998 the petitioner is dismissed form service which dismissal entails retrial disqualification as per the rules. In my opinion, the respondent in stead of finding fault in their house as to why the verification was not done immediately and if done and reported against the petitioner, why the action was not taken within a reasonable time, cannot resort to such a harsh penal action after the petitioner had already put in more than 36 years of active service and was on the verge of superannuation. He would have retired on reaching the age of 58 years on 30. 9. 1998. In my opinion, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. It was a fit case where the proceedings should not have been initiated at all in a cause of action of 1954 or at the most in 1959. It is also not understandable as to why the extreme punishment of dismissal was inflicted by the authorities concerned. The authorities had very conveniently over looked their own inaction or lapse and had mechanically passed the order without going into the circumstances for dismissing the petitioner who had rendered 38 years of service at the time of dismissal. If at all any order was to be passed, he could have been compulsorily retired in May 1998 instead of September 1998, but with all retrial benefits or even lesser punishment, if at all it was so required to be inflicted. But in the circumstances the petitioner is entitled to say that the action of the respondents is not legally bonafide as to deprive him the retrial benefits in the circumstances mentioned above. ;