SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, was dismissed from service by an order dated. 18. 8. 71 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota on the basis of his conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Baran in a case under Sections 330/320 I. P. C. THE petitioner had been sentenced imprisonment of three years. On an appeal filed before the High Court, sentence of the petitioner was reduced to three months. In passing the order of dismissal, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota invoked powers under Rule 19 (2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.
(2.) AGAINST the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a petition before the Hon'ble Governor on 27. 8. 71. The petitioner also filed appeal before the Inspector General of Police, who recommended his reinstatement. At one time the government took a decision to re-employ him but subsequently it decided not to give appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court which was registered as Civil Writ No. 645/75. When the case was taken up by the Court on 12. 10. 83, nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate made a statement before the Court that the petitioner had been re-employed. The Court observed that the petitioner appears to be no longer interested to peruse the writ petition and on that ground the petition was dismissed. The fact however was that the petitioner was never re-employed by the respondent government and the statement made before the Hon'ble Court was not factually correct. On a further petition made by the petitioner to the effect that his earlier representation had not been decided, Hon'ble the Governor examined his case and found that termination of service of the petitioner was not justified. Hon'ble the Governor, therefore, passed an order accepting the petition of the petition. Decision of the Hon'ble Governor was communicated to the petitioner by the Office of the Secretary, Governor of Rajasthan, Raj Bhawan, Jaipur vide communication No. F. 10 (2)/188/gh/88/1142 dated 9. 11. 89. On 23. 11. 89 the petitioner approached the Home Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan for communicating him the decision of the Governor and he thereafter repeatedly made requests for supply of copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Governor. However, copy of the actual order passed by the Hon'ble Governor was not given to the petitioner. He, therefore, filed this writ petition before the Court. A show cause notice was issued by this Court on 19. 5. 90 calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted and disposed of. On 17. 1. 91 the Court directed the counsel for petitioner to place before the Court copies of punishment orders etc. and also a copy of the order of this Court dated 12. 10. 83 incorporating statement of the Dy. Govt. Advocate to the effect that the petitioner had been re-employed, although in fact he had not been re-employed. On 25. 2. 91 the Court directed the learned Additional Advocate General to keep ready for perusal of the Court, order passed in the Review Petition of the petitioner. Thereafter, the record was produced by the government in which the representations/petitions of the petitioner have been dealt with. Case of the respondents is that the petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baran and he was convicted for having caused injuries to S/shri Panna, Mangu and Mishri during the course of interrogation in connection with some cases. His appeal was dismissed on 19. 3. 71. Only sentence was reduced from three years to three months. The respondents have denied the claim of petitioner that the Inspector General of Police had recommended his case for re-employment. According to the respondents, the Govt. had directed the I. G. P. to consider the case of petitioner for re-employment on his own, in case he fulfill conditions required for employment under the relevant rules. When question of relaxation of age came up, the government refused to grant relaxation and matter relating to re-employment of the petitioner was closed vide letter dated 25. 2. 74. His representation was once again rejected on 6. 3. 75 (Annexure-R. 2 ). He thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court and that was decided on 12. 10. 83. Thereafter he filed a Review Petition on 21. 12. 88 suppressing the material facts. On this Review Petition the Deputy Secretary to the Hon'ble Government informed the petitioner vide letter dated 9. 10. 89 that his Review Petition has been decided. According to the respondents the date 18. 8. 71 has wrongly been mentioned in Annexure-1. The matter was however again reconsidered by the Hon'ble Governor on a request made by the government and it was finally decided on 19. 8. 90 that his petition cannot be considered being time barred. This decision was conveyed to the petitioner vide order dated 28. 8. 90 (Ann. R. 3 ). Further case of respondents is that if any assertion was made by the Deputy Govt. Advocate regarding re-employment, then the petitioner should have annexed a copy of that assertion. Respondents have also raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition at Jaipur Bench and they have finally pleaded that in view of the order dated 28. 8. 90, the writ petition should be dismissed as having become infructuous. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and therein he has reproduced the order passed by Hon'ble the Governor on 7. 11. 89. He has then pleaded that the order dated 28. 8. 90 was passed after filing of the present writ petition and that no opportunity of hearing was given to him by the Hon'ble Governor before passing the order dated 28. 8. 90.
(3.) ALONG with an application dated 18. 8. 91 the petitioner has filed copies of certain documents and on 15. 3. 91 the respondents have also filed some other documents. Facts which emerge from rival pleadings and the record placed before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General show that against the order of dismissal, the petitioner had submitted a petition before Hon'ble the Governor of Rajasthan with a prayer for setting aside of the order of his dismissal and for his reinstatement. This petition was forwarded by the Raj Bhawan to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan. A copy of the petition dated. 27. 8. 91 was also addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Minister. Office of the Chief Minister sent the file to the Home Department which in turn-forwarded it to the Inspector General of Police vide communication No. F. 2 (88)H. E. I. /71 dated 30. 10. 71. The Office of the Inspector General of Police wrote letter No. V. 1325/police-Force/ DE/acd/kta/69 dated 20. 12. 71 to the Police Department and communicated the comments of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota justifying the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner. The Home Department again wrote to the Inspector General of Police on 3. 2. 72 to send the comments on the representation of the petitioner. A letter dated 3. 10. 72 was addressed by the Office of Inspector General of Police indicating that some persons who have been convicted earlier were reinstated in service. The Home Department against sought specific comments of the Office of Inspector General of Police vide letter No. F. 2 (88) H. I. /71 dated 16. 12. 72. The Office of the Inspector General of Police vide letter dated 21. 2. 73 observed that the government may take a compassionate view in the matter and consider reinstatement of the petitioner in service taking note of the fact that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and is still young. The government in turn wrote letter dated 31. 8. 73 and directed the Inspector General of Police to consider the case of petitioner for fresh employment provided he fulfills conditions required under the Rules for such employment. The Inspector General of Police wrote a letter dated 23. 11. 73 to the Government for relaxation in the age requirement prescribed in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules. This request was however turned down by the government vide letter dated 25. 2. 74. A letter dated 6. 3. 75 was also sent to the petitioner in the context of his representations addressed to the Home Minister of Rajasthan. All these letters have been included in File No. F. 2 (88)/he. I/71. The matter relating to the petitioner has been dealt with in another file No. F. l (Kh)39/home (Gr. I)/80. The Deputy Secretary, Home Department, made a noting on 27. 8. 80 that although the petitioner has not been convicted for any offence involving moral turpitude, after a lapse of nine years it cannot be possible to reinstate or re-employ the petitioner in service more so when limitation of review, i. e. , a period of three years, has lapsed. On 29. 10. 84 it was noted that the writ petition of the petitioner was rejected by the High Court. The factum of dismissal of the writ petition of the petitioner has been noted on 8. 3. 89, 9. 3. 83, 18. 3. 89 also and in various other nothings made from time to time. On 26. 4. 89 a note was submitted to Hon'ble the Governor and the government expressed the view that it was not a fit case for reinstatement of the petitioner in service, Hon'ble the Governor considered the matter on 7. 11. 89 and observed that previous petition filed by Mukhram had not been decided by the Governor and that that petition was within limitation. The Governor further observed that the offence committed by the petitioner does not come within the ambit of moral turpitude and the Deputy Inspector General of Police had not followed the law while passing the order dated 18. 8. 71 and that it will not be proper to maintain such an order. On that basis, Hon'ble the Governor decided to cancel the order of punishment. The case was however resubmitted before Hon'ble the Governor by the Commissioner and Secretary, Home Department and on 16. 8. 90 the Hon'ble Governor recorded that the decision of his predecessor be set aside and the position arrived at earlier be restored. ;