SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 3.6.1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 26.6.1995 (Annex. P/3) passed by the respondent No. 1 Superintendent of Police, Churu (Disciplinary Authority) by which the Disciplinary Authority found the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him in the departmental enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules') and thus, imposed the penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner, and further the order dated 4.9.1995 (Annex. P/5) passed by the respondent No. 2 Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner (Appellate Authority) by whcih the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and furthermore, the order dated 23.9.1997 (Annex. P/7) passed by the Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which the review petition of the petitioner was dismissed, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows: The petitioner is a Constable in the Police Department and while he was posted as Constable at Police Station, Sardarsahar District Churu, he was served with a charge -sheet under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules vide show cause notice dated 29.4.1995 and the allegation in the charge -sheet against the petitioner was that on 17.3.1995 at 7.30 PM, he misbehaved with Prem Narian Vishnoi, retired Dy. S.P, after consuming liquor when he came to Police Station, Sardarsahar and thus, he took liquor while on duty and such act of the petitioner amounted to gross misconduct. A copy of the charge -sheet alongwith show cause notice dated 29.4.1995 is marked as Annex. P/l. The petitioner was asked to submit reply to the said charge -sheet within 15 days. After receiving the said show cause notice alongwith charge -sheet Annex. P/l dated 29.4.1995, a reply was submitted by petitioner before the respondent No. 1 Superintendent of Police, Churu (Disciplinary Authority) within the stipulated time and in that reply, the petitioner denied the allegations/charges levelled against him. A copy of the said reply running in three pages is marked as Annex. P/2. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 Superintendent of Police, Churu (Disciplinary Authority) through impugned order dated 26.6.1995 (Annex. P/3) imposed the penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner has been fully proved. The case of the petitioner is that without dealing with the grounds taken by the petitioner in the reply Annex. P/2, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order Annex. P/3 dated 26.6.1995 and apart from this, in -fact it is a non -speaking order and no reasons whatsoever have been assigned in it by the Disciplinary Authority for holding the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him and thus, the impugned order Annex. P/3 is violative of the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules and furthermore, imposing punishment without assigning reasons is per se illegal and cannot be sustained.
(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that he preferred an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.6.1995 (Annex. P/3) before the respondent No. 2 Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner (Appellate Authority), but the same was dismissed by the respondent No. 2 Appellate Authority through order Annex. P/5 dated 4.9.1995 without assigning any reason and thus, that order Annex. P/5 is also a non -speaking order. The further case of the petitioner is that similarly, his review petition was also dismissed by the Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur through order Annex. P/7 dated 23.9.1997. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above and in this writ petition, the following two submissions have been raised: (1) That alongwith the charge -sheet, statement of allegations has not been supplied to the petitioner. (2) that all the three impugned orders Annex. P/3 dated 26.6.1995, Annex. P/5 dated 4.9.1995 and Annex. P/7 dated 23.9.1997 are non -speaking orders and no reasons whatsoever have been assigned in them and thus, they cannot be sustained and should be quashed and set aside. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents. However, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner as he himself filed the reply Annex. P/2 before the Disciplinary Authority and after considering his reply, the impugned order Annex. P/3 dated 26.6.1995 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Apart from this, this Court should not interfere in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the findings of guilt recorded against the petitioner as well as the punishment awarded to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.;