Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, working as Deputy Inspector, in the respondent -Police Department at the relevant point of time, was posted in Police Station -Nimbahera, District: Chittorgarh, has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved by issuance of the Charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1958') vide Annex. 2 dated 18.05.2000, on the alleged ground that he detained one Naru Kalbelia, resident of Badoli, illegally in connection with a criminal case u/s. 379 IPC in Case No. 155/95 from 02.08.1995 to 25.08.1995. The petitioner although furnished his explanation to the said charge sheet vide his reply (Annex. 3) dated 26.06.2000, in which he specifically submitted that he was out of station from 27.07.1995 to 05.08.1995 in connection with the investigation of said criminal case itself and had gone to the State of U.P. for investigation and recovery of the stolen items. He further submitted in his reply that he returned back only on 05.08.1995, therefore, there was no question of any illegal detention of person, namely, Naru Kalbedlia on 02.08.1995 by the petitioner and, therefore, the complaint filed by wife of said Naru Kalbelia was frivolous and unsustainable and he cannot be given any charge sheet on that basis.
(2.) AFTER hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, a coordinate bench of this Court passed a detailed interim order on 13.10.2000, which is quoted herein below for ready reference: - The instant writ petition has been fled challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, "the Rules, 1958"). The petitioner has filed before this Court sufficient evidence to show that he was not only on leave but also on the date of the alleged incident, he had gone out -side the State for investigation purpose, therefore, the proceedings should be quashed as it would amount to unnecessary harassment and humiliation of the petitioner. On the direction of this Court, Mr. Durga Dutt, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, appeared today in the Court and produced the record of investigation etc. It appears that the proceedings under rule 17 of the Rules, 1958 had been initiated against the petitioner merely on the allegations made by the wife of the detenue. There is no other material, which may prima facie involve the petitioner in the said detention. The case requires further investigation and for that purpose, it is necessary for the Competent Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh that he may examine the documents, i.e. statements etc. which had been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Human Rights Commission while passing the said order dated 1.2.2000 and then initiate appropriate proceedings against the delinquent and he may also hold a preliminary enquiry to find out: who were the officials responsible for that detention. If the Competent Authority makes such a request before the Human Right Commission, the Commission is requested to give the copies of the statements etc. in its possession to find out who were the responsible officials and the authority may proceed subsequently according to law. So far as this case is concerned, the proceedings are stayed for a period of six weeks. Put up the matter after six weeks. On that date, the Court may be apprised of the development. Sd/ -Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. In pursuance of the said order, it appears that the respondent -State again filed additional reply, which was filed on 07.12.2000. The relevant para 3 of the additional reply is quoted herein below: - 3. That in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Court, the enquiry was got conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh. The Additional S.P. while conducting the enquiry recorded the statements of independent witnesses namely Shanker Lal Gujar, Ram Chandra Harijan, Raju Nath, Rajesh Kumawat who all have denied of the fact that husband of complainant Naru Kalbeliya was taken to police station during the alleged period, nor they have stated that Naru Kalbeliya was seen at Police Station during that period. It is also an admitted position of the case that the petitioner Roop Kishore was out of station for recovery in Case No. 155/95 under Section 379 I.P.C. and left Nimbahera on 27.7.95 at 11.15 p.m. vide Report No. 1461 along with the Circle Officer Shri Khet Dan Ujjwal and went to Bijner (U.P.) and came back on 5.8.1995. The complainant has made allegations that Shri Roop Kishore carried her husband forcibly in jeep on 2.8.1995. Thus, the allegations of the complainant were not proved.
(3.) IN view of this admission of the respondent -State that the petitioner was not even available in the said Police Station -Nimbahera at the relevant point of time i.e. on 02.08.1995, there is no question of making any allegation against him that he illegally detained one Naru Kalbelia. Therefore, in the absence of any 'misconduct' made out against the petitioner, he could not be served with the impugned charge sheet, as has been done by the respondents.;