ASOPA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 3. 1. 1989 whereby he was dismissed from service in a departmental enquiry and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 5. 4. 1989 as well as order dated 4. 7. 1991 passed in review petition and further challenged inaction on the part of the Director General of Police of not setting aside the dismissal order and reinstate him on account of acquittal order dated 4. 9. 1995 passed in criminal case lodged against him.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated that relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled as Constable on 13. 3. 1970 and was posted in Police Line. On 30. 3. 1987, two Constables Ram Singh and Laxmi Chand posted at out post Kanwara under Police Station Jhalarapatan while going out for service of summons, spotted two Kanjars with guns on the way. Both Antariya Kanjar and Ramchandariya Kanjar were taken into custody at Police Station Jhalarapatan. On the same date, a FIR No. 30/87 for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was registered against Antariya Kanjar. During the investigation, it was revealed that the license of 12 Bore Gun No. 14949 alleged to be recovered from Antariya Kanjar, which was issued in the name of the petitioner. In enquiry on being suspected that the original number of gun has been tempered by the petitioner in his gun and number 194949 has been superimposed whereas the original gun was sold to Antariya Kanjar. Hence, a FIR No. 55/87 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/25, 29 and 8/3 of the Arms Act and the gun of the petitioner was seized. The petitioner was arrested also. A separate case was registered against Antariya Kanjar. That after registration of the aforesaid to FIRs, a charge sheet was issued in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police on 6. 11. 1987. The investigation in the criminal case as well as enquiry proceeded simultaneously. Although protest was lodged for not to proceed with the departmental enquiry till the criminal case is finalized. Antariya Kanjar was acquitted on 1. 4. 1991 and the petitioner was acquitted on 4. 9. 1995. The judgments of acquittal of Antariya Kanjar dated 1. 4. 1991 (annexure-3) 8. 3. 1991, Ramchandariya Kanjar dated 8. 3. 1991 (annexure-2) and petitioner dated 4. 9. 1995 (annexure-1) are on record. After 4. 9. 195, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director General of Police that he was acquitted of the charge by the Criminal Court after regular trial, therefore, he may be reinstated. Along with the said representation, copy of the dismissal order as well as judgment of acquittal were also enclosed. When nothing was heard in the matter, the present writ petition was filed. In ground (g) of para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has raised the ground that once the petitioner has been acquitted after full-fledged criminal trial in respect of the same charge, the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority in departmental enquiry cannot sustain. The State Government filed reply to the writ petition raising two preliminary objections i. e. delay of six years and not approaching this Court with clean hands. On merit, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner was dismissed after regular departmental enquiry as per Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958, which has been examined by the Appellate Authority as well as Reviewing Authority and there is no violation of the Rules and principles of natural justice. The respondents in reply to ground (g) of para 7 of writ petition have submitted that the charges leveled against the petitioner were fully proved in departmental enquiry, therefore, the punishment order has been rightly passed and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the respondents do not dispute the fact of acquittal of the petitioner and Antariya Kanjar in the criminal trial. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that once after full-fledge criminal trial, the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charge, the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the departmental enquiry cannot sustain. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that departmental enquiry was completed despite objection while the criminal case was pending and further without giving opportunity of hearing and copy of enquiry report or notice under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner was dismissed in departmental enquiry vide order dated 3. 1. 1989, therefore, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) SUBMISSION of counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case by giving benefit of doubt. The said judgment in the criminal trial will not carry same weight as would be carried by the judgment wherein the petitioner is honourably acquitted. Apart from above, there is no provision of review after the judgment by the Criminal Court in case where the departmental enquiry has already been concluded and punishment has been awarded. The respondents have also contended that proof of departmental enquiry and criminal case is different. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. Before proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to consider the nature of charge leveled in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case in order to fine out whether they are substantially same and further based on same set of circumstances and evidence. ;