VYAS, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge order Annex. P/2 dated 31. 1. 1994 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar as well as order Annex. P/3 dated 19. 4. 1995 passed by the Deputy INspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner Narendra Pal died and vide order dated 14. 1. 1999 application for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased petitioner was allowed and (1) Smt. Narendra Kumari w/o late Narendra Pal, (2) Pawan Kumar s/o Late Narendra Pal and (3) Manju, (4) Kiran and (5) Geeta Daughters of late petitioner Narendra Pal were substituted in place of the deceased petitioner. While posted at Police Lines Sriganganagar as Head Constable in the Rajasthan Police under the respondents, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter, ``the CCA Rules'') on 11. 02. 1993. Alongwith the charge-sheet, memorandum was also served upon the petitioner whereby he was asked to file his reply within 15 days. The petitioner filed his reply on 4. 2. 1993 and denied the allegations levelled against him. According to the charge-sheet the following allegations were levelled against petitioner Narendra Pal: *** The petitioner has disclosed in the writ petition that before framing the charges against him a preliminary inquiry was conducted and, during the course of preliminary inquiry, statements of some persons were recorded. These persons were later on produced as witnesses in the regular inquiry. It is submitted that the said preliminary inquiry report was considered against the petitioner during the regular inquiry and the preliminary inquiry report was exhibited as Ex. P/6 in the inquiry. The petitioner submitted that copy of the said inquiry report as well as copies of the statements of witnesses was not provided to the petitioner. It is further stated that after completion of the regular inquiry, the inquiry officer arrived at the finding of guilt against the petitioner without recording his own finding on each charge as per sub-rule (7) of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. The petitioner alleged in the writ petition that the conclusion reached by the inquiry officer is not supported by reasons and the inquiry officer did not consider the statements of defence witnesses and merely took note of the written-statement filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that the department examined P. W. 1 Inderjeet Punia, PW. 2 Ranveer Kumar, PW. 3 Daulat Ram and PW. 4 Bhanwar Singh and, in defence, the petitioner led evidence of DW. 1 Hari Singh, Constable who was with him at the relevant time on judicial guard duty, DW. 2 Jagroop Singh, who was also on judicial guard duty and DW. 3, Dr. Dilbag Singh, from who the petitioner was taking medical treatment. According to the petitioner, at the time of arriving at the final finding in the inquiry, the inquiry officer did not at all consider the statements of the defence witnesses. The contention of the petitioner is that no witness was produced by the department to prove the preliminary inquiry report which was exhibited by the department as Ex. P. 6 in the regular inquiry and was considered by the inquiry officer at the time of arriving at the final conclusion. The petitioner, therefore, contends that it cannot be said that in the said inquiry the prosecution has proved its case for alleged misconduct against the petitioner.
(3.) IT is submitted by the petitioner that the finding on charge No. 1 is without any basis and without any evidence. According to him, Dr. Inderjeet made report only on the basis of smell that he had consumed liquor. P. W. 1 Dr. Inderjeet categorically stated in his evidence that only on the basis of smell coming out from the mouth of the petitioner he made the report of the petitioner having consumed liquor and, in fact, no tests were carried out. At the inquiry, this witness of the department did not prove any test report and himself stated that though blood was taken for test, but there being no letter from the inquiry officer of the preliminary inquiry, he did not get the blood tested to find out percentage of alcohol. In his cross-examination, PW. 1 Dr. Inderjeet stated thus: *** The petitioner's submission is that in the absence of any report with regard to percentage of alcohol the prosecution cannot claim to have proved its case against the petitioner because it has categorically come on record by way of evidence that the petitioner was being medically treated for his protracted illness. Even P. W. 1 Dr. Inderjeet has further stated in his cross-examination that there are numerous medicines which contain as an essential ingredient a quantity of alcohol and a higher does of the medicine may make it difficult to ascertain whether it is medicine or alcohol consumed by the person. It is further contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that. . . no evidence on record or even whisper by any witness that they saw the petitioner and two accused consuming liquor while they were in the custody. Therefore, in the absence of any direct evidence the inquiry officer has committed error while coming to the conclusion that charges levelled against the petitioner Narendra Pal are proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that there is no independent witness in the inquiry, more so, it is admitted fact of the case that so-called complainant P. W. 2 Ranveer and PW. 3 Daulat Ram made any complaint in the Court with regard to consuming liquor by the petitioner when they were brought to Court. If any incident took place outside the Court where the trial was being proceeded with, obviously complainants would have made a complaint to the concerned Magistrate. So also, if there was any truth in the allegation, they were to file a complaint or application before the Court of the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sriganganagar before whom the petitioner produced the under- trials Satnam Singh and Mana Singh; but, no complaint or application was filed in the Court with regard to any incident having taken place outside the Court. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the case the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer cannot be treated to be trustworthy. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited attention of the Court towards the judgment of the Supreme Court to convass that in the absence of cogent and relevant evidence coming on record no conclusion as to prosecution having proved the charge can be reached. ;