- (1.) On a representation having been given by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur with the request to consider his case sympathetically so as to allow him to join his duties which were dispensed with on 24.03.1992, on an acquittal having been awarded to him by criminal court vide order dated 14.12.1995 and the same having been rejected on 23.03.1996 (Annexure-9) that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the request that the orders dated 24.03.1992 and 04.09.1992 be quashed and set aside. Further, he has prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Constable, vide order dated 12.09.1987, under special recruitment on the ground of getting the dacoit arrested who was an accused in a case of bank robbery. It was only on account of the efforts made by the petitioner that the said accused persons could be arrested. Therefore, the petitioner was rewarded for his deeds by being appointed on the said post. The petitioner was initially posted at Police Lines, Bharatpur where he continued to work till his services were dispensed with. The petitioner was subsequently implicated in a criminal case on the allegation that while he was on duty at Kama Animal Fair (Pashu Mela), in the night intervening 11th-12th June, 1989, at about 2.00 am, that he was found unlocking a trunk of one Shri Digvijay Singh, Constable No.1148. Another constable Shri Dhirendra Kumar is said to have woke up at that time and had seen the petitioner. Thereafter, he had informed Virendra Singh, Constable No.319 who was also sleeping there. On lodging of the report, a First Information Report (No.437/1989) was registered for the offences under Sections 379 and 511 IPC. The investigation commenced and challan came to be filed in the court of concerning Magistrate. The petitioner was then arrested in the criminal case. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was acquitted on 14.12.1995 (Annexure-1).
(3.) On account of the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner was ordered to be placed under suspension, in exercise of the powers under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, vide order dated 20.07.1989. However, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 19.02.1990. But again the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.03.1990. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, alongwith statement of allegations, by Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur on 03.10.1989 for initiation of departmental proceedings (Annexure-3). The petitioner had then filed an application on 13.12.1989 for obtaining copies of the statement of the witnesses and relevant documents so as to enable him to prepare his reply/ defence (Annexure-4). But the petitioner was neither allowed to inspect the record nor the copies of the desired documents were supplied to him. Thereafter on 29.03.1990, the petitioner filed an application to summon witnesses, namely Shri Yadav Singh, Safi Mohammed, Shiv Dutt, Kamla Devi and Hari Ram Meena so as to cross-examine them. Again his request was not acceded to by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer concluded the enquiry and held that petitioner was guilty of all the charges. The report was submitted before the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Bhratpur.;