V.K.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority by which the punishment of termination of his services has been imposed.
(2.) A charge -sheet was served upon the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 in respect of different charges. The Dy. Superintendent of Police Baran was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The charge -sheet was issued on 16.7.91 and the reply was submitted by the petitioner. During the course of the inquiry proceedings a letter was submitted by the petitioner in which it was stated that he admits all the charges and does not want any inquiry to be conducted and as such a lenient view of the matter may be taken. This letter was submitted on 17.2.1992 and the fact that such a letter was submitted was recorded in the order -sheet on which the signature of the petitioner exists. The contention which has now been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there was no admission at' all and the petitioner was required to sign a blank paper. The Appellate Authority found that the language written in the application is not in the hand -writing of the petitioner and therefore it was not justified on the part of the appellate authority to come to the conclusion that there was an admission. So far as this question is concerned, the signature of the petitioner exists on the said application which has not been denied. Besides this, he has signed the order -sheet on that very day i.e. 17.2.1992. It is not necessary when an application is submitted that the contents thereof must be written in the hand - writing of the applicant alone. If an applicant takes the help of some other person in writing the application and thereafter signes the same under law it will be presumed to be his application. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that because the contents on the application were not written by the petitioner has no substance. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Dominion of India v. General Manager : AIR1957Mad356 , wherein it was observed, that the confession must be duly proved because in absence of proof of admission inquiry cannot be obviated. It is submitted that unless a confession is unconditional, it would be invalid in terms of the provisions of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The inducement or the confession made to before higher authority is no confession in the eye of law. This contention has no force because firstly, the provisions of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable and secondly the application submitted by the petitioner on which his signature has not been denied, is not a confession as a confession under criminal law, but is an admission of the charges levelled against him., inducing the department not to make further inquiry and as such the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of the same. The contention that the signature was obtained on a blank paper has also no force because the petitioner could have summoned either before the Disciplinary Authority or even before the Appellate Authority, the inquiry officer before whom the application was submitted. This Court cannot go into such a disputed question of fact. It is not necessary to prove the confession admission in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act as in the disciplinary proceedings strict proof is not required and it stands on a different footings than it stands before the Criminal Court.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the copy of the inquiry report has not been given. In my opinion, the moment the petitioner admits the charges there is no necessity for providing a copy of the inquiry report to him. It is on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner that further inquiry was not conducted and therefore he prevented the department in bringing the evidence in support of the charges which would otherwise have been brought and as such it cannot be allowed to be agitated subsequently on the ground that a copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to him. In the appeal preferred before the Dy. Inspector General of Police, this contention was raised that the application submitted on 17.2.1992 was voluntary in which the charges were accepted by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer cannot fabricate a document for which no reason was shown. The finding which has been recorded is that of fact and the contention of the petitioner appears to be an after thought. If any signature was obtained on blank paper this fact could have been immediately refuted on 17.2.1992 either to the higher authorities or even a FIR could have been filed against the Inquiry Officer, if in fact he had obtained the signatures on blank papers. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has force.;